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 · 2007-04-19 · Office of Personnel Management · Notices

Notices. Notice

25,398 words·~115 min read·/register/2007/04/19/07-1931·

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

BILLING CODE 6325-38-M OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request For Extension Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: SF 3104 and SF 3104B AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension without change, of a currently approved collection. SF 3104, Application for Death Benefits-Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), is used by persons applying for death benefits which may be payable under FERS because of the death of an employee, former employee, or retiree who was covered by FERS at the time of his/her death or separation from Federal Service. SF 3104A, Survivor Supplement
(FERS)[attached to the SF 3104] requests information from the survivor which is used by OPM to determine entitlement to a survivor annuity supplement (supplementary annuity). SF 3104B, Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits when Deceased was an Employee at the Time of Death, is used by applicants for death benefits under FERS if the deceased was a Federal employee at the time of death. It is estimated that approximately 9,607 SF 3104s will be processed annually. This form requires approximately 60 minutes to complete. An annual burden of 9,607 hours is estimated. Approximately 3,759 SF 3104Bs are expected to be processed annually. It is estimated that the form requires approximately 60 minutes to complete. An annual burden of 3,759 hours is estimated. The total annual burden is 13,366. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540 and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group.
(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-7425 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection: SF 3112 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for extension of a currently approved information collection. Standard Form 3112, CSRS/FERS Documentation in Support of Disability Retirement Application, collects information from applicants for disability retirement so that OPM can determine whether to approve a disability retirement. The applicant will only complete Standard Forms 3112A and 3112C. Standard Forms 3112B, 3112D and 3112E, will be completed by the immediate supervisor and the employing agency of the applicant. Approximately 12,100 applicants for disability retirement complete this application annually. The SF 3112C requires approximately 60 minutes to complete. A burden of 12,100 hours is estimated for SF 3112C. SF 3112A is used each year by approximately 1,350 persons who are not Federal employees. SF 3112A requires approximately 30 minutes to complete and a burden of 675 hours is estimated for SF 3112A. All 12,100 respondents must use SF 3112C; of the 12,100, only 1,350 of the applicants are not Federal Employees and use SF 3112A. The total annual burden for SF 3112 is 12,775 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.* Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540 and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affair, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-7426 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 15a-4; SEC File No. 270-7; OMB Control No. 3235-0010. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Rule 15a-4 (17 CFR 240.15a-4) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) (the “Exchange Act”) permits a natural person member of a securities exchange who terminates his or her association with a registered broker-dealer to continue to transact business on the exchange while the if the exchange files a statement indicating that there does not appear to be any ground for disapproving the application. The total annual burden imposed by Rule 15a-4 is approximately 106 hours, based on approximately 25 responses (25 Respondents x 1 Response/Respondent), each requiring approximately 4.23 hours to complete. The Commission uses the information disclosed by applicants in Form BD:
(1)To determine whether the applicant meets the standards for registration set forth in the provisions of the Exchange Act;
(2)to develop a central information resource where members of the public may obtain relevant, up-to-date information about broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers and government securities broker-dealers, and where the Commission, other regulators and SROs may obtain information for investigatory purposes in connection with securities litigation; and
(3)to develop statistical information about broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers and government securities broker-dealers. Without the information disclosed in Form BD, the Commission could not effectively implement policy objectives of the Exchange Act with respect to its investor protection function. The statement submitted by the exchange assures the Commission that the applicant, in the opinion of the exchange, is qualified to transact business on the exchange during the time that the applications are reviewed. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted within 60 days of this notice. Dated: April 11, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7421 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55624; File No. SR-NSX-2007-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Effective Period for Rule 2.12 Regarding Third-Party Routing Services in Respect of Orders Entered Into NSX BLADE April 12, 2007. 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 3, 2007, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NSX. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to extend the effective period for Rule 2.12, which describes the terms under which the Exchange provides routing services procured from a third party with respect to orders entered into its new state of the art trading system, NSX BLADE. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NSX, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nsx.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSX 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. NSX 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 The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rules 2.11 and 2.12 to extend the effective period for Rule 2.12 (relating to the Exchange's use of a third party to provide outbound routing of orders from the Exchange to other trading centers (“Routing Services”)) through June 30, 2007, and to delay the effectiveness of Rule 2.11 (relating to the outbound routing function of the Exchange's affiliate, NSX Securities, LLC (“NSX Securities”)) until July 1, 2007. Rule 2.11 provides for certain terms and conditions under which NSX Securities, an affiliate of the Exchange, will provide Routing Services. Rule 2.11 was approved by the Commission in connection with the approval of the Exchange's new trading rules relating to NSX BLADE on August 31, 2006. 5 The Exchange subsequently filed and received approval for the addition of Rule 2.12, which provides for terms and conditions of the Exchange's use of a third party to provide Routing Services. 6 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52836 (September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54808 (November 21, 2006), 71 FR 69163 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-15). Rule 2.12 currently provides that it is effective through February 28, 2007, with Rule 2.11 becoming effective on March 1, 2007. In connection with the rule filing adding Rule 2.12, 7 the Exchange requested this finite period of effectiveness so that the Exchange could offer routing services through NSX BLADE while NSX Securities completed its registration process as a broker-dealer with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (and thus became available to provide routing services), 8 and while the Exchange evaluated its options for providing routing services to ETP Holders. 7 *Id.* 8 In January 2007, NSX Securities' application for registration as a broker-dealer was approved by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. As of March 1, 2007, the Exchange had not yet begun using NSX Securities for routing services. In the instant rule filing, the Exchange is proposing to extend the effectiveness of Rule 2.12 through June 30, 2007, and to delay the effectiveness of Rule 2.11 until July 1, 2007, in order to allow the Exchange more time to evaluate its options for providing routing services to ETP Holders. The ability to route orders entered into NSX BLADE to away markets for execution at the best available prices is a key feature of NSX's new system. The Exchange intends to provide routing services in accordance with Rule 2.12 until June 30, 2007, unless the Exchange, with the Commission's approval, amends Rule 2.12 before such date. During such time period, the Exchange intends to evaluate its options for providing routing services. At the conclusion of such time period, the Exchange may decide to
(i)Continue the approach provided for in Rule 2.12 on a permanent basis, and not use NSX Securities as the outbound router (by filing a proposed rule change to delete Rule 2.11 and renumbering Rule 2.12);
(ii)use the Exchange's original approach of NSX Securities as an outbound router and discontinue the approach provided for in Rule 2.12 (by filing a proposed rule change to delete Rule 2.12) or
(iii)file a proposed rule change to allow ETP Holders to use either NSX Securities or the approach provided for in proposed Rule 2.12 for outbound routing. 2. Statutory Basis NSX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 in particular, which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 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 either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 13 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 14 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would permit the Exchange to immediately update the effective dates for NSX Rules 2.11 and 2.12. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission. 15 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. NSX has satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. 14 *Id.* 15 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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-NSX-2007-04 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-NSX-2007-04. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSX. 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-NSX-2007-04 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7422 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55631; File No. SR-NSX-2006-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Regarding the Annual Certification of Compliance and Supervisory Processes April 13, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 22, 2006, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” or “Exchange”) filed with 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 the Exchange. On April 9, 2007, the NSX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change (“Amendment No. 1”). 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the original filing, the NSX provided more information regarding the certification process and corrected a grammatical error. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to adopt NSX Rule 5.7 and accompanying Interpretations and Policies .01 (Annual Compliance and Supervision Certification) to require each Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holder's Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) to certify annually to having in place a process to establish, maintain, review, modify, and test policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable Rules of the Exchange, and federal securities laws and regulations. The text of the proposed rule and interpretation is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized. CHAPTER V. SUPERVISION Rule 5.7. Annual Certification of Compliance and Supervisory Processes * Each ETP Holder shall have its chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) certify annually, as set forth in Interpretations and Policies .01, that the ETP Holder has in place processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance policies and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable Rules of the Exchange and federal securities laws and regulations. * Interpretations and Policies .01 Annual Compliance and Supervision Certification *The Exchange is issuing this interpretation to Rule 5.7, which requires that the ETP Holder's chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) execute annually a certification that the ETP Holder has in place processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance policies and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable Rules of the Exchange and federal securities laws and regulations. The certification for each ensuing year shall be effected no later than on the anniversary date of the previous year's certification. The certification shall state the following:* Annual Compliance and Supervision Certification *The undersigned is the chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) of [name of ETP Holder corporation/partnership/sole proprietorship] (the “ETP Holder”). As required by Rule 5.7, the undersigned makes the following certification* : *1. The ETP Holder has in place processes to* : *(a) Establish, maintain and review policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable Rules of the National Stock Exchange, Inc. and federal securities laws and regulations* ; *(b) Modify such policies and procedures as business, regulatory and legislative changes and events dictate; and* *(c) Test the effectiveness of such policies and procedures on a periodic basis, the timing and extent of which is reasonably designed to ensure continuing compliance with Rules of the National Stock Exchange, Inc. and federal securities laws and regulations* . *2. The undersigned chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) has conducted one or more meetings with the chief compliance officer in the preceding 12 months, the subject of which satisfy the obligations set forth in Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 5.7* . *3. The ETP Holder's processes, with respect to paragraph 1 above, are evidenced in a report reviewed by the chief executive officer (or equivalent officer), chief compliance officer, and such other officers as the ETP Holder may deem necessary to make this certification. The final report has been submitted to the ETP Holder's board of directors and audit committee or will be submitted to the ETP Holder's board of directors and audit committee (or equivalent bodies) at the earlier of their next scheduled meetings or within 45 days of the date of execution of this certification* . *4. The undersigned chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) has consulted with the chief compliance officer and other officers as applicable (referenced in paragraph 3 above) and such other employees, outside consultants, lawyers and accountants, to the extent deemed appropriate, in order to attest to the statements made in this certification* . *The Exchange provides the following guidance in completing the Certification above. Included in the processes requirement is an obligation on the part of the ETP Holder to conduct one or more meetings annually between the chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) and the chief compliance officer to:
(1)Discuss and review the matters that are subject of the certification;
(2)discuss and review the ETP Holder 's compliance efforts as of the date of such meetings; and
(3)identify and address significant compliance problems and plans for emerging business areas* . *The report required in paragraph 3 of the certification must document the ETP Holder's processes for establishing, maintaining, reviewing, testing and modifying compliance policies, that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable NSX rules and federal securities laws and regulations, and any principal designated by the ETP Holder may prepare the report. The report must be produced prior to execution of the certification and be reviewed by the chief executive officer (or equivalent officer), chief compliance officer and any other officers the ETP Holder deems necessary to make the certification and must be provided to the ETP Holder's board of directors and audit committee in final form either prior to execution of the certification or at the earlier of their next scheduled meetings or within 45 days of execution of the certification. The report should include the manner and frequency in which the processes are administered, as well as the identification of officers and supervisors who have responsibility for such administration. The report need not contain any conclusions produced as a result of following the processes set forth therein. The report may be combined with any other compliance report or other similar report required by any other self-regulatory organization provided that:
(1)Such report is clearly titled in a manner indicating that it is responsive to the requirements of the certification and Rule 5.7;
(2)an ETP Holder that submits a report for review in response to a NSX request must submit the report in its entirety; and
(3)the ETP Holder makes such report in a timely manner, i.e., annually.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose It is critical that each NSX ETP Holder understand the importance of employing comprehensive and effective compliance policies and written supervisory procedures. Compliance with applicable NSX rules and Federal securities laws and regulations is the foundation of ensuring investor protection and market integrity and is essential to the efficacy of self-regulation. Consequently, the Exchange is proposing to adopt Rule 5.7, that would require ETP Holders to have their CEOs, or equivalent officer, certify annually to having in place processes to establish, maintain, review, modify, and test policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable NSX rules, and Federal securities laws and regulations. 4 4 This new rule should not impose substantial new obligations on NSX ETP Holders as the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) and the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) have implemented similar rules. *See* NASD Rule 3013(b) and Interpretative Material—3013 (“IM 3013”) (effective Dec. 1, 2004; amendment to IM 3013 effective March 17, 2006); NYSE Rule 342.30 (effective Nov. 16, 2005). As a result, a similar requirement is already in place for NASD and NYSE member firms, addressing member firms’ compliance with the rules of those self-regulatory organizations. The first certifications pursuant to those rules were due by April 1, 2006. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require the CEO to certify annually that senior executive management has in place processes to:
(1)Establish and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable NSX rules and Federal securities laws and regulations;
(2)modify such policies and procedures as business, regulatory and legislative changes and events dictate; and
(3)test the effectiveness of such policies and procedures on a periodic basis, the timing of which is reasonably designed to ensure continuing compliance with applicable NSX rules, and Federal securities laws and regulations. The proposed rule change further would require the CEO to certify that those processes are evidenced in a report that has been reviewed by those executing the certification, as well as the member's board of directors and audit committee. The proposed rule change also would create a new Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 5.7, which sets forth the language of the certification and gives further guidance as to the requirements and limitations of the rule. The proposed rule change states that included in this processes requirement is an obligation on the part of the ETP Holder to conduct one or more meetings annually between the CEO (or equivalent officer) and the chief compliance officer to:
(1)Discuss and review the matters that are subject of the certification;
(2)discuss and review the ETP Holder's compliance efforts as of the date of such meetings; and
(3)identify and address significant compliance problems and plans for emerging business areas. The CEO also may be the same person as the chief compliance officer. As noted in the proposed rule change, the periodic and content requirements for meetings between the CEO (or equivalent officer) and the chief compliance officer, as well as the pertinent requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the certification, are intended to indicate the unique and integral role of the chief compliance officer both in the discharge of certain compliance processes and the reporting requirements that are the subject matter of the certification and in providing a reliable basis upon with the CEO can execute the certification. The chief compliance officer is the primary advisor to the ETP Holder on its overall compliance scheme and the particularized rules, policies and procedures that the ETP Holder adopts. This is because the chief compliance officer should have an expertise in the process of:
(1)Gaining an understanding of the products, services or line functions that need to be the subject of written compliance policies and written supervisory procedures;
(2)identifying the relevant rules, regulations, laws and standards of conduct pertaining to such products, services or line functions based on experience and/or consultation with those persons who have a technical expertise in such areas of the ETP Holder's business;
(3)developing, or advising other business persons charged with the obligation to develop, policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with those relevant rules, regulations, laws and standards of conduct;
(4)evidencing the supervision by the line managers who are responsible for the execution of compliance policies; and
(5)developing programs to test compliance with the ETP Holder's policies and procedures. It is that expertise in the process of compliance that makes the chief compliance officer an indispensable party to enable the CEO to reach the conclusions stated in the certification. Consequently, any certification made by a CEO under circumstances where the chief compliance officer has concluded, after consultation, that there is an inadequate basis for making such certification would be, without limitation, conduct inconsistent with the observance of the high standards of commercial honor, and the just and equitable principles of trade—a violation of NSX Rule 3.1. Beyond the certification requirement, it is the intention of both Rule 5.7 and Interpretations and Policies .01 to foster regular and significant interaction between senior management and the chief compliance officer regarding the ETP Holder's comprehensive compliance program. The chief compliance officer and other compliance officers that report to the chief compliance officer (as described in the sentence that immediately follows) shall perform the compliance functions contemplated under paragraphs 3 and 4 of the certification. Nothing herein is intended to limit or discourage the participation of other employees both within and outside the ETP Holder's compliance department in any aspect of the ETP Holder's compliance programs or processes, including those matters discussed herein. However, it is understood that the chief compliance officer and, where applicable, the most senior compliance officers having primary compliance department responsibility for each of the ETP Holder's business segments, will retain responsibility for the compliance functions contemplated by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the certification. As may be necessary to render their views and advice, the chief compliance officer and the other officers referenced in paragraph 3 of the certification who consult with the CEO (or equivalent officer) pursuant to paragraph 4, shall, in turn, consult with other employees, officers, outside consultants, lawyers and accountants. The Exchange recognizes that supervisors with business line responsibility are accountable for the discharge of an ETP Holder's compliance policies and written supervisory procedures. The signatory to the certification is certifying only as to having processes in place to establish, maintain, review, test and modify the ETP Holder's written compliance and supervisory policies and procedures and the execution of this certification and any consultation rendered in connection with such certification does not by itself establish business line responsibility. The requirement that an ETP Holder's processes include providing the report to the board of directors and audit committee (required by paragraph 3 of the certification) does not apply to ETP Holders that do not utilize these types of governing bodies and committees in the conduct of their business. 5 5 As a part of their process, ETP Holders must have the report reviewed by their governing bodies and committees that serve similar functions in lieu of a board of directors and audit committee. The report required in paragraph 3 of the certification must document the ETP Holder's processes for establishing, maintaining, reviewing, testing and modifying compliance policies, that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable NSX rules and Federal securities laws and regulations. Any principal designated by the ETP Holder may prepare the report. The report must be produced prior to execution of the certification and be reviewed by the CEO (or equivalent officer), chief compliance officer and any other officers the ETP Holder deems necessary to make the certification and must be provided to the ETP Holder's board of directors and audit committee in final form either prior to execution of the certification, at the earlier of their next scheduled meetings or within 45 days of execution of the certification. The report should include the manner and frequency in which the processes are administered, as well as the identification of officers and supervisors who have responsibility for such administration. The report need not contain any conclusions produced as a result of following the processes set forth therein. The report may be combined with any other compliance report or other similar report required by any other self-regulatory organization provided that:
(1)Such report is clearly titled in a manner indicating that it is responsive to the requirements of the certification and Rule 5.7;
(2)an ETP Holder that submits a report for review in response to a NSX request must submit the report in its entirety; and
(3)the ETP Holder makes such report in a timely manner, for example, annually. In summary, this proposal recognizes that responsibility for discharging compliance policies and written supervisory procedures rests with business line supervisors. The proposal also clarifies that execution of the certification does not by itself establish a signatory as having such line supervisory responsibility. The proposal also sets forth the particulars regarding the report that must evidence a member's compliance processes. It states that the report must be produced prior to execution of the certification and reviewed by the CEO, and such other officers as the member deems necessary. The report also must include the manner and frequency in which the processes are administered and identify those officers and supervisors with responsibility for such administration. The report need not contain conclusions that result from following the specified processes, such as compliance deficiencies. Additionally, the report may be combined with other reports required by a self-regulatory organization, provided the report is made annually, clearly indicates in the title that it contains the information required by Rule 5.7, and that the entire report is provided in response to any regulatory request for all or part of the combined report. Finally, with respect to review of the report, this clarifies that review by a member's board of directors and audit committee only applies to those members whose corporate governance structure have such or similar governing bodies and committees—it does not impose a requirement that members create them if they do not currently exist. ETP Holders should understand that the requirements of Rule 5.7 and Interpretations and Policies .01 represent, in part, a principle-based requirement to certify that the ETP Holder has in place processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance policies and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable NSX rules and Federal securities laws and regulations. Consequently, compliance with the periodic and content requirements of the Interpretation pertaining to meetings between the CEO (or equivalent officer) and the chief compliance officer does not satisfy the full extent of these principle-based obligations that will vary with the facts and circumstances of an ETP Holder's business activities and organizational structure. Moreover, NSX emphasizes the testing aspect of this principle-based requirement; an integral purpose of NSX rules pertaining to supervision is that ETP Holders adopt policies and procedures that are effective as to both the scope of, and the achievement of compliance with, applicable NSX rules, and Federal securities laws and regulations. NSX believes the proposal provides an effective mechanism to compel substantial and purposeful interaction between senior management and compliance personnel, thereby enhancing the quality of ETP Holders' supervisory and compliance systems. NSX further believes the rule change imposes the minimal additional burden on ETP Holders that is necessary to achieve the proposal's purpose, as the firms are already obligated to provide similar certifications in connection with rules of other self-regulatory organizations. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 7 of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NSX believes that that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above in that it will enhance focus on ETP Holders' compliance and supervision systems, thereby decreasing the likelihood of fraud and manipulative acts and increasing investor protection. 6 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would 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 The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)As the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the NSX consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. 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-NSX-2006-16 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. SR-NSX-2006-16. This file number should be included in the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review 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 filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NSX-2006-16 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2007. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to the delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7428 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice Denying a Request for a Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Re-Refining Used Petroleum Lubricating Oils (MIL-PRF-2104; Type 10W, Type 15W40, Type 30W and Type 40W). SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)is denying the request for a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Re-Refining Used Petroleum Lubricating Oils (MIL-PRF-2104; Type 10W, Type 15W40, Type 30W and Type 40W), under the NAICS code 324191. The basis for this denial is that SBA has determined that this request is for a product in a specific solicitation, rather than for a class of products within a subdivision within a North American Industry Classification, as is required for class waivers under 13 CFR 121.1202(d). DATES: This notice is effective immediately. FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0N CONTACT: Sarah L. Ayers, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)205-6413; by FAX at
(202)292-3771; or by e-mail at *sarah.ayers@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SBA received a request on December 12, 2006, to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Re-Refining Used Petroleum Lubricating Oils (MIL-PRF-2104; Type 10W, Type 15W40, Type 30W and Type 40W) prompted by a Defense Supply Center Richmond
(DSCR)solicitation. In response, on January 5, 2007, SBA published in the **Federal Register** , Vol. 72, No. 3, a notice of intent to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Re-Refining Used Petroleum Lubricating Oils (MIL-PRF-2104; Type 10W, Type 15W40, Type 30W and Type 40W). SBA explained in the notice that it was soliciting comments and sources of small business manufacturers for the products described in the request. SBA received one comment. The commenter indicated that one company currently supplies re-refined engine oils to the Federal government, and this same company also supplies several distributors with re-refined lubricating oils. The commenter also indicated the knowledge of two other companies that have supplied re-refined lubricating oils to the Federal market within the last 24 months. However, these companies did not wish to identify themselves or their contracting history to SBA for review. Based on SBA's review of the comments received, and its further examination of the waiver request, SBA is denying the requested class waiver because it does not seek a waiver for a “class of products” within the contemplation of 13 CFR 121.1202(d). In particular, a “class of products” for purposes of the class waiver procedures provided in 13 CFR 121.1204(a), is comprised of products within a “subdivision under a NAICS Industry Number.” *See* 13 CFR 121.1202(d). By contrast, the individual waiver procedures under 13 CFR 121.1204(b) apply when a request for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule is “for a product in a specific solicitation.” *See* 13 CFR 121.1203. Since the instant request is “for a product in a specific solicitation,” it is governed by the procedures for an individual waiver under 13 CFR 121.1204(b). According to that provision, only a contracting officer may request an individual waiver for a specific solicitation. SBA is therefore denying the instant request for a class waiver because it constitutes a request for an “individual waiver for a product in a specific solicitation,” which must be initiated by a contracting officer pursuant to 13 CFR 121.1204(b). Authority: 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17). Arthur E. Collins, Acting Director for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E7-7454 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5780] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Fellowships in the Visual Arts, Film, and Architecture and Urban Design *Announcement Type:* New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/PE/C/CU-07-60. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* *Application Deadline:* May 29, 2007. *Executive Summary:* The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs will award up to three Cooperative Agreements to support programs for short residency and training programs in the United States for emerging and mid-career visual artists, film artists, and architecture and urban design professionals from selected countries. Each Cooperative Agreement may support artists from one or more of the three categories. The foreign participants will be nominated by the Public Affairs Sections of U.S. Embassies, in consultation with the grantee. Grantees will develop 30-60 day programs in the United States for the nominated participants, individually or in small groups. Each program should be built around a residency experience, which may be supplemented by other program elements designed to enhance and expand upon the activities of the residency. The goal of each project is to increase cross-cultural understanding internationally by providing program participants with an in-depth exposure to their professional discipline as practiced in the United States; outreach to U.S. colleagues and publics, and opportunities for creation and exhibition of their work. I. Funding Opportunity Description: *Authority:* Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. *Purpose:* The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), Office of Citizen Exchanges, Cultural Programs Division offers a new funding opportunity for organizations to develop short residency and training programs in the United States for emerging and mid-career visual artists, film artists, and architecture and urban design professionals from selected countries. The Bureau expects to award up to three Cooperative Agreements, one for work with each category of artist, and expects each Cooperative Agreement to be approximately $250,000 to $500,000, including administrative costs. Each proposal may include artists from one of the three categories. Applicants may submit separate proposals in up to two categories. Contingent on the quality of the proposals submitted and their responsiveness to this RFGP, the Bureau anticipates providing funding under this RFGP for each of the three categories of artists. For the purpose of this RFGP, visual arts includes artistic production in all media of the visual arts; and film includes all aspects of production in film and electronic media, including features, short films, and documentaries. The Bureau seeks to increase cross-cultural understanding internationally by providing program participants with an in-depth exposure to their professional discipline as practiced in the U.S.; outreach to U.S. colleagues and publics, and opportunities for creation and exhibition of their work. We will select innovative programs for emerging and mid-career professionals in the visual arts, film, and architecture and urban design that will introduce them to the diversity of cultural expression in the United States, in particular in their chosen medium of expression; provide them with hands-on and direct experience with new techniques and technology in the arts; offer opportunities for interaction with U.S. artists and other arts professionals in their discipline; assist them with the development of their careers; familiarize them with the business aspects of their respective fields, including measures to protect artists' rights; and offer them opportunities to share their work with U.S. audiences. Both practicing artists and curators and historians of the disciplines concerned may be included in these projects. Proposals may include programs for individual artists or for defined small groups of artists. Each proposal will include several programs. The proposal should describe the proposed programs, explain how they reflect the diversity of U.S. culture, and show how they respond to the needs and interests of artists coming from a variety of countries and backgrounds. A program may be for artists in a specific discipline (painting, sculpture, animation, etc.) or for groups of artists working in different disciplines. In general, all participants will have at least limited capacity in English. Each program may be 30-60 days in length. Applicants should explain their rationale for the length of the program proposed, keeping in mind that longer programs will of necessity reduce the total number of program participants. Programs should be centered around an artistic residency, customized to meet the needs and interests of the participants, that includes the foreign program participants as peers of U.S. colleagues. Applicants should include other activities that will enhance the residency experience, which may include site visits; meetings with U.S. artists, curators, designers, architects, film directors, cinematographers, and other professionals; public presentations of the work of the program participants; workshops for U.S. youth, artists, and arts educators. All programs should include the opportunity for the participants to create works and to share their creation with U.S. colleagues and with the public. Program activities complementary to the residency may take place in one or more locations in the U.S. This project does not include program activities outside the U.S. Participation in university courses for credit may not be included in proposals, and participation in conferences will be considered only if it is clearly relevant to the professional background of the participants and represents only a small part of a larger program. Programs that exclusively involve participation in summer institutes or other structured training situations are not acceptable and will not be funded. The Bureau welcomes public presentation of the art work of program participants and recognizes its value to mutual understanding. Proposals should include opportunities for presentation and for public programs, such as panel discussions and other opportunities for program participants to discuss their work with U.S. audiences. While Bureau funds may be used to support public programming, long-standing ECA practice is that Bureau funds are not used for the public presentation of art works in the United States, including such costs as shipping, framing, installation, gallery rental, or security. Cost sharing may be used for presentation costs and should be so noted in the budget. Proposals should include sample programs with day-by-day schedules. Proposals should also indicate the willingness and ability of the applicant to design or adjust specific programs to meet the professional goals of the program participants. Key U.S. partner institutions should be identified and, where possible, letters of support should be provided in the proposal. Program participants will be emerging and mid-career professional artists in the visual arts, film, and architecture and urban design, generally aged 20-40 years from countries identified by the Bureau. ECA intends that the program will be highly competitive and that the Participants will be nominated by the Public Affairs Section of U.S. Embassies, in consultation with local cultural institutions, the ECA program office and the grantee. Proposals should describe the proposed consultative role of local cultural institutions and the grantee in the nomination and selection process. Nominations will demonstrate the candidate's record of accomplishment in the chosen discipline, the benefits he or she will gain from the program, and the impact on cultural relations between the U.S. and the country concerned. (Grantees will be encouraged to propose names to the Public Affairs section in target countries as part of the recruitment process.) In general, participants will not have extensive or recent experience in the U.S. The grantee may request nominations from a group of countries for a specific program and, if the total number of nominations received is greater than the funding allows for that program, may select from among the nominees, with the approval of the program office. Applicants may suggest preferred countries and regions from which to draw participants, however, because the priority countries may change at any time, applicants must state that they are prepared to work with program participants from any country or region. ECA will determine the priority or target countries for recruitment of program participants. Priority countries will be those in all world regions of greatest importance to the Department of State's public diplomacy mission of building mutual understanding. Currently, our key priorities for cultural exchange programs (subject to change as noted) include countries with significant Muslim populations in North Africa, the Middle East, South and Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and Europe; China, selected countries in Latin America, and certain major countries in Africa. However, while priority countries may change, it is unlikely that we will include countries whose artistic community has substantial and ongoing contact with their counterparts in the U.S. *Currently, priority countries for this project are:* Africa (sub-Saharan): Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe. East Asia and the Pacific: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines. Europe: Azerbaijan, Turkey. Near East and North Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, West Bank/Gaza, Yemen. South and Central Asia: India, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Western Hemisphere: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela. Potential program participants will have at least a working knowledge of English, sufficient to carry out the residency program without interpretation. Applicants may propose interpretation for selected ancillary program elements. Normally, the applicant will provide the interpreter for these activities; costs for the interpreter may be included in the budget. We expect that this project will lead to greater artist-to-artist and institution-to-institution contact and collaboration across international borders. Proposals should describe mechanisms for measuring, supporting and enhancing this cooperation during the grant period and beyond. In the Cooperative Agreements issued under this RFGP, the Bureau program office (ECA/PE/C/CU—the Cultural Programs Division) and U.S. Embassies abroad are substantially involved in program activities above and beyond routine grant monitoring. ECA program office and U.S. Embassy activities and responsibilities for this program are as follows: • ECA will determine the priority or target countries for recruitment of program participants. Priority countries will be those in all world regions of greatest importance to the Department of State's public diplomacy mission of building mutual understanding. • Embassies will nominate all program participants, in consultation with local cultural institutions, ECA and the grantee. The grantee may propose names for consideration by Embassy Public Affairs Sections and will have the opportunity to review the biographic information submitted and advise if a specific nominee does not appear to have attained an appropriate professional level. • The ECA program office will review the proposed program schedules for each program participant or group of participants. • Embassies will showcase the participating artists and their work, including work developed in or as a result of their experience in the U.S., following the artists' return to the home country. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. ECA's level of involvement in this program is listed under number I above. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY-2007. *Approximate Total Funding:* $750,000-$1.5 million. *Approximate Number of Awards:* Up to three. *Approximate Average Award:* $250,000-$500,000. *Floor of Award Range:* $250,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, September 15, 2007. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* September 15, 2009. *Additional Information:* Pending successful implementation of this program and the availability of funds in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA's intent to renew the cooperative agreements for two additional fiscal years, before openly competing them again. III. Eligibility Information III.1. Eligible Applicants Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as your contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements
(a)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 three cooperative agreements, in an amount of $250,000 or more 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.
(b)Arts experience: Applicants must demonstrate expertise in, and show experience programming in the artistic disciplines (contemporary visual arts, fiction or documentary film, and/or architecture and design) appropriate to their proposal, as well as experience in the administration of substantial residency programs in the arts.
(c)Iran vetting: The Department of State is expanding its cultural exchange programs with the people of Iran. ECA has received a license, under the Iran sanctions regulations, from the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC)covering its own and its grantees' exchange programs. A condition of that license is that grantees must submit information on their Boards of Directors and key personnel involved in the project, together with similar information on their sub-grantees, for vetting. Because it is likely that participants from Iran will be included in every cooperative agreement funded under this RFGP, all applicants must be vetted before an award can be made. For further information, see section VI.1.b below. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1 Contact Information To Request an Application Package Please contact Ms. Proctor, Cultural Programs Division, ECA/PE/C/CU, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 202-203-7488, *ProctorLM@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C/CU-07-60 located at the top of this announcement when making your request. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction
(PSI)document which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C/CU-07-60 located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV.2. To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm.* 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 10 copies of the application should be sent per the instructions under IV.3e. “Submission Dates and Times 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 is 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: V.3d.1 Adherence to All Regulations Governing the J Visa The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the official program sponsor of the exchange program covered by this RFGP, and an employee of the Bureau will be the “Responsible Officer” for the program under the terms of 22 CFR part 62, which covers the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program (J visa program). Under the terms of 22 CFR part 62, organizations receiving grants under this RFGP will be third parties “cooperating with or assisting the sponsor in the conduct of the sponsor's program.” The actions of grantee program organizations shall be “imputed to the sponsor in evaluating the sponsor's compliance with” 22 CFR part 62. Therefore, the Bureau expects that any organization receiving a grant under this competition will render all assistance necessary to enable the Bureau to fully comply with 22 CFR part 62 *et seq.* The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places great emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantee program organizations and program participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should *explicitly state in writing* that the applicant is prepared to assist the Bureau in meeting all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62. If your organization has experience as a designated Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor, the applicant should discuss their record of compliance with 22 CFR part 62 *et seq* ., including the oversight of their 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 Office of Citizen Exchanges of ECA 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)203-5029, *FAX:*
(202)453-8640. 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.) Grantees 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. 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. 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. Travel. International and domestic airfare; visas; transit costs; ground transportation costs. Please note that all air travel must be in compliance with the Fly America Act. There is no charge for J-1 visas for participants in Bureau sponsored programs. 2. Per Diem. It is anticipated that residency programming will be economical with costs substantially below published Federal per diem rates. For U.S.-based programming outside the residency site, organizations may use, as a maximum, the published Federal per diem rates for individual U.S. cities. Domestic per diem rates may be accessed at: *http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/perdiem/perd03d.html* . ECA requests applicants to budget realistic costs that reflect the local economy and do not exceed Federal per diem rates. No programming in foreign areas is anticipated under this RFGP. 3. Interpreters. Interpreters will not be authorized for the residency program, as participants will be expected to have sufficient English for the residency. Interpreters may be authorized, where justified, for selected activities complementary to the residency itself. Applicants should hire their own locally based interpreters for these activities. State Department interpreters will not normally be available for these activities. 4. Book and Cultural Allowances. Foreign participants are entitled to a one-time cultural allowance of $150 per person, plus a book allowance of $50. U.S. program staff, trainers or participants are not eligible to receive these benefits. 5. Consultants. Consultants may be used to provide specialized expertise or to make presentations. Honoraria rates should not exceed $250 per day. Organizations are encouraged to cost-share rates that would exceed that figure. Subcontracting organizations may also be employed, in which case the written agreement between the prospective grantee and sub-grantee should be included in the proposal. Such sub-grants should detail the division of responsibilities and proposed costs, and subcontracts should be itemized in the budget. 6. Room Rental. The rental of meeting space should not exceed $250 per day. Any rates that exceed this amount should be cost shared. 7. Materials. Proposals may contain costs to purchase, develop and translate materials for participants. Costs for high quality translation of materials should be anticipated and included in the budget. Grantee organizations should expect to submit a copy of all program materials to ECA, and ECA support should be acknowledged on all materials developed with its funding. 8. Equipment. Applicants may propose to use grant funds to purchase equipment, such as computers and printers; these costs should be justified in the budget narrative. Costs for furniture are not allowed. 9. Working Meal. Normally, no more than one working meal may be provided during the program. Per capita costs may not exceed $15-$25 for lunch and $20-$35 for dinner, excluding room rental. The number of invited guests may not exceed participants by more than a factor of two-to-one. 10. Return Travel Allowance. A return travel allowance of $70 for each foreign participant may be included in the budget. This allowance would cover incidental expenses incurred during international travel. 11. Health Insurance. Foreign participants will be covered during their participation in the U.S. program by the ECA-sponsored Accident and Sickness Program for Exchanges (ASPE), for which the grantee must enroll them. Details of that policy can be provided by the contact officers identified in this solicitation. The premium is paid by ECA and should not be included in the grant proposal budget. However, applicants are permitted to include costs for travel insurance for U.S. participants in the budget. 12. In-country Travel Costs for Visa Processing Purposes. Given the requirements associated with obtaining J-1 visas for ECA-supported participants, applicants should include costs for any travel associated with visa interviews or DS-2019 pick-up. 13. Administrative Costs. Costs necessary for the effective administration of the program may include salaries for grantee organization employees, benefits, and other direct and indirect costs per detailed instructions in the Application Package. While there is no rigid ratio of administrative to program costs, proposals in which the administrative costs do not exceed 25% of the total requested ECA grant funds will be more competitive under the cost effectiveness and cost sharing criterion, per item V.1 below. Proposals should show strong administrative cost sharing contributions from the applicant, the in-country partner and other sources. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3F. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: *Application Deadline Date:* Tuesday, May 29, 2007. *Reference Number:* ECA/PE/C/CU-07-60. *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.1 Submitting Printed Applications Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages *may not* be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and ten
(10)copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, *Ref.:* ECA/PE/C/CU-07-60, 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 Section(s) at the U.S. embassy(ies) for its(their) review. IV.3f.2 Submitting Electronic Applications Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the ‘Get Started’ portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with Grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support *Contact Center Phone:* 800-518-4726. *Business Hours:* Monday-Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time. *E-mail:* *support@grants.gov.* Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time, of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3f.3 An applicant may submit no more than two proposals under this competition; only one proposal may be submitted for each category of artists included in this RFGP (visual arts; film; architecture and urban design). IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards (cooperative agreements) resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation: 1. *Quality of the program idea:* Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission. Proposals must show high artistic merit of the organizations and activities included. 2. *Institutional Capacity:* The institution must demonstrate a successful record of providing residency opportunities for visual artists, film artists, and/or architects and urban designers, as appropriate to the proposal. The institution must show its professional capacity to manage high-quality arts exchange programs. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program or project's goals, with sufficient background in the disciplines concerned. Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs in the arts, including responsible fiscal management. 3. *Program Planning:* Detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. Program objectives should be clearly stated, reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should explain how they will be adapted to meet the needs of participants from countries or world regions selected by ECA, and clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 4. *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. 5. *Support of Diversity:* Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (selection of participants, program venue and audience, and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). 6. *Project Evaluation:* Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the program'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 the methodology used to link outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a. Award Notices: Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive an 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.1b. Iran Vetting: A critical component of the Administration's Iran policy is the support for indigenous Iranian voices calling for freedom. President Bush himself has pledged this support and the State Department has made the awarding of grants for this purpose a key component of its Iran policy. As a condition of licensing these activities, the Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC)has requested the Department of State to follow certain procedures to effectuate the goals of Sections 481(b), 531(a), 571, 582, and 635(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as amended); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A and 2339B; Executive Order 13224; and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6. These licensing conditions mandate that the Department conduct a vetting of potential Iran democracy grantees and sub-grantees for counter-terrorism purposes. To conduct this vetting the Department will collect information from grantees and sub-grantees regarding the identity and background of their key employees and Boards of Directors. Should your proposal be ultimately recommended for funding, to fulfill these requirements and include Iranians in this proposed exchange, your organization will need to submit the names of your Board and principle officers as well as the names of any sub-grantees for the vetting described above on Form DS-4100 which will be provided at the appropriate time. Note: To assure that planning for the inclusion of Iran complies with requirements, please contact Mr. Mark Larsen at 202-453-8154 or Mr. Daniel Schuman at 202-453-8167 for additional information. 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 following reports: 1. A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award; 2. Quarterly program and financial reports showing activities carried out and expenses incurred in the calendar quarter. Grantees 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. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement: For film programs, contact Ms. Susan Cohen at 202-203-7509, *CohenSL@state.gov.* For visual arts or architecture and design programs, contact: Ms. Leanne Mella at 202-203-7497, *MellaLA@state.gov.* The address for both program officers is Cultural Programs Division, ECA/PE/C/CU, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 567, Washington, DC 20547. All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/PE/C/CU-07-60. Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information *Notice:* The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the 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 12, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-7462 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5779] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: International Visitor Leadership Program Assistance Awards *Announcement Type:* New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/PE/V-08-01. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 19.402. *Key Dates:* October 1, 2007-September 30, 2008 (pending availability of funds). *Application Deadline:* June 12, 2007. *Executive Summary:* The Office of International Visitors, Division of Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA/PE/V), United States Department of State
(DoS)announces an open competition for two assistance awards to develop and implement International Visitor Leadership Programs (IVLP). The IVLP seeks to increase mutual understanding between the U.S. and foreign publics through carefully designed professional programs for approximately 4,500 foreign visitors per year from all regions of the world. The two awards will fund programming for a minimum of 610 and a maximum of 1,576 International Visitors (IVs). Award A will fund up to approximately 1,576 visitors ($4,570,886), of which approximately 1,436 visitors ($4,286,136) will be through core administrative funding; approximately 120 visitors ($220,890) will be through additional seasonal administrative funding, if required; and approximately 20 visitors ($63,860) will be for administrative support of the PL 80-402 Training Fellowship Program. Award B will fund up to approximately 610 visitors ($1,122,760), of which approximately 490 visitors ($843,310) will be through core administrative funding and approximately 120 visitors ($279,449) will be through additional seasonal administrative funding, if required. Applicant organizations may bid on one or both awards. Pending availability of funds, one assistance award will be made for each category described above. If an organization is interested in bidding on more than one award, a separate proposal and budget is required for each award. See Project Objectives, Goals, and Implementation
(POGI)for definitions of program-related terminology. The intent of this announcement is to provide the opportunity for organizations to develop and implement a variety of programs for International Visitors from multiple regions of the world. Please refer to the POGI for a breakdown of regions. The award recipients will function as national program agencies
(NPAs)and will work closely with Department of State
(DoS)Bureau staff, who will guide them through programmatic, procedural, and budgetary issues for the full range of IVL programs. (Hereafter, the terms “award recipient” and “national program agency” will be used interchangeably to refer to the grantee organization[s].) I. Funding Opportunity Description *Authority:* Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. *Purpose:* Program Information. *Overview:* The International Visitor Leadership Program seeks to increase mutual understanding between the U.S. and foreign publics through carefully designed professional programs. IVL programs support U.S. foreign policy objectives. Participants are current or potential foreign leaders in government, politics, media, education, science, labor relations, non-government organizations (NGOs), the arts, and other key fields. They are selected by officers of U.S. embassies overseas and are approved by the DoS staff in Washington, DC. Since the program's inception in 1940, there have been over 140,000 distinguished participants in the program. Over 225 program alumni subsequently became heads of state or government in their home countries. All IVL programs must maintain a non-partisan character. The Bureau seeks proposals from nonprofit organizations for development and implementation of professional programs for Bureau-sponsored International Visitors to the U.S. Once the awards are made, separate proposals will be required for each group project [Single Country (SCP), Sub-Regional (SRP), Regional (RP), and Multi-Regional (MRP)] as well as less formal proposals for Individual and Individuals Traveling Together
(ITT)programs. At this time, proposals are not required for Voluntary Visitor (VolVis) programs. Each program will be focused on a substantive theme. Some typical IVL program themes are:
(1)U.S. foreign policy;
(2)U.S. government and political system;
(3)economic development;
(4)education;
(5)media;
(6)information technology;
(7)freedom of information;
(8)NGO management;
(9)women's issues;
(10)tolerance and diversity;
(11)counterterrorism;
(12)democracy and human rights;
(13)rule of law;
(14)international crime; and
(15)environmental issues. IVL programs must conform to all Bureau requirements and guidelines. Please refer to the Program Objectives, Goals, and Implementation
(POGI)document for a more detailed description of each type of IVL program. *Guidelines:* Goals and objectives for each specific IVL program will be shared with the award recipients at an appropriate time following the announcement of the assistance awards. DoS will provide close coordination and guidance throughout the duration of the awards. Award recipients will consult closely with the responsible ECA/PE/V program officer throughout the development, implementation, and evaluation of each IVL program. Prospective program agencies should demonstrate the potential to develop the following types of programs. 1. Programs must contain substantive meetings that focus on foreign policy goals and program objectives and are presented by experts. Meetings, site visits, and other program activities should promote dialogue between participants and their U.S. professional counterparts. Programs must be balanced to show different sides of an issue. 2. Most programs will be three weeks long and will begin in Washington, DC, with an orientation and overview of the issues and a central examination of federal policies regarding these issues. Well-paced program itineraries usually include visits to four or five communities. Program itineraries ideally include urban and rural small communities in diverse geographical and cultural regions of the U.S., as appropriate to the program theme. 3. Programs should provide opportunities for participants to experience the diversity of American society and culture. Participants in RPs or MRPs are divided into smaller sub-groups for simultaneous visits to different communities, with subsequent opportunities to share their experiences with the full group once it is reunited. 4. Programs should provide opportunities for the participants to share a meal or similar experience (home hospitality) in the homes of Americans of diverse occupational, age, gender, and ethnic groups. Some individual and group programs might include an opportunity for an overnight stay (home stay) in an American home. 5. Programs should provide opportunities for participants to address student, civic and professional groups in relaxed and informal settings. 6. Participants should have appropriate opportunities for site visits and hands-on experiences that are relevant to program themes. The award recipients may propose professional “shadowing” experiences with U.S. professional colleagues for some programs (a typical shadowing experience means spending a half- or full-workday with a professional counterpart). 7. Programs should also allow time for participants to reflect on their experiences and, in group programs, to share observations with program colleagues. Participants should have opportunities to visit cultural and tourist sites. 8. The award recipients must make arrangements for community visits through affiliates of the National Council for International Visitors (NCIV). In cities where there is no such council, the award recipients will arrange for coordination of local programs. *Qualifications:* 1. Proposals must demonstrate a minimum of four years of successful experience in coordinating international exchanges. 2. Proposals must demonstrate the ability to develop and administer IVL programs. 3. Proposals must demonstrate an applicant's broad knowledge of international relations and U.S. foreign policy issues. 4. Proposals must demonstrate an applicant's broad knowledge of the United States and U.S. domestic issues. 5. Award recipients must have a Washington, DC. presence. Applicants who do not currently have a Washington, DC. presence must include a detailed plan in their proposal for establishing such a presence by October 1, 2007. The costs related to establishing such a presence must be borne by the award recipient. No such costs may be included in the budget submission in this proposal. The award recipient must have e-mail capability, access to Internet resources, and the ability to exchange data electronically with all partners involved in the International Visitor Leadership program. 6. Proposals must demonstrate that an applicant has an established resource base of programming contacts and the ability to keep this resource base continuously updated. This resource base should include speakers, thematic specialists, or practitioners in a wide range of professional fields in both the private and public sectors. 7. All proposals must demonstrate sound financial management. 8. All proposals must contain a sound management plan to carry out the volume of work outlined in the Project Objectives, Goals, and Implementation guidelines (POGI). This plan should include an appropriate staffing pattern and a work plan/timeframe. 9. Proposals must describe capacity to employ additional staff during particularly busy months of the IVLP cycle and to assume additional projects, if requested. Award A must include separate proposals and budgets for:
(a)Three seasonal staff teams (two 4-month and one 7-month) and
(b)administration of the PL 80-402 Training Fellowship Program. (See the POGI document for more details on this program.) Award B must include a separate proposal and budget for two 7-month seasonal staff teams. 10. Applicants must include in their proposal narrative a discussion of “lessons learned” from past exchange coordination experiences, and how these will be applied in implementing the International Visitor Leadership Program. 11. Award recipients must have the capability to utilize the world wide Web for the electronic retrieval of program data from the Department of State's IVLP website. The award recipient's office technology must be capable of exchanging information with all partners involved in the International Visitor Leadership program. The award recipient must have the capability to electronically communicate through eNPA (Electronic National Program Agency), the software application that allows award recipients to share information and data electronically through the Department of State's Exchange Visitor Database (EVDB-e) and with the Councils for International Visitors (CIVs), as well as to produce a national program book and other supporting documents (e.g., appointment requests and confirmations, participant welcome letters, and mailing labels) generated directly into Microsoft Word. 12. Applicants must include as a separate attachment under TAB G of their proposals the following: a. Samples of at least two schedules for international exchange or training programs that they have coordinated within the past four years that they are particularly proud of and that they feel demonstrate their organization's competence and abilities to conduct the activities outlined in the RFGP; b. Samples of orientation and evaluation materials used in past international exchange or training programs. *Requirements for Past Performance References:* Instead of Letters of Endorsement, DoS will use past performance as an indicator of an applicant's ability to successfully perform the work. TAB E of the proposal must contain between three and five references who may be called upon to discuss recently completed or ongoing work performed for professional exchange programs (which may include the IVL program). The reference must contain the information outlined below. Please note that the requirements for submission of past performance information also apply to all proposed sub-recipients when the total estimated cost of the sub-award is over $100,000. At a minimum, the applicant must provide the following information for each reference: • Name of the reference organization. • Project name. • Project description. • Performance period of the contract/grant. • Amount of the contract/grant. • Technical contact person and telephone number for referenced organization. • Administrative contact person and telephone number for referenced organization. DoS may contact representatives from the organizations cited in the examples to obtain information on the applicant's past performance. DoS also may obtain past performance information from sources other than those identified by the applicant. *Personnel:* Applicants must include complete and current resumes of the key personnel who will be involved in the program management, design, and implementation of IVL programs. Each resume is limited to two pages per person. *Budget Guidelines:* Applicants are required to submit a comprehensive line-item administrative budget in accordance with the instructions in the Solicitation Package (Proposal Submission Instructions.) The submission must include a summary budget and a detailed budget showing all administrative costs. Proposed staffing and costs associated with staffing must be appropriate to the requirements outlined in the RFGP and in the Solicitation Package. Cost sharing is encouraged and should be shown in the budget presentation. The Department of State is seeking proposals from public and private nonprofit organizations that are not already in communication with DoS regarding an FY-2008 assistance award from ECA/PE/V. All applicants must have a minimum of four years' experience conducting international exchanges, an ability to closely consult with DoS staff throughout program administration, and proven fiscal management integrity. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, as sponsor and manager of the International Visitor Leadership Program, plays a significant role in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of all types of International Visitor Leadership Programs and is responsible for all communication with overseas missions. The Bureau will provide close coordination and guidance throughout the duration of the awards. Award recipients will consult closely with the responsible ECA/PE/V program officer throughout the development, implementation, and evaluation of each IVL program. All liaison shall be with the designated elements of the DoS relative to the following responsibilities incurred by the recipient under this agreement: A. Program—Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of International Visitors, Community Resources Division, ECA/PE/V/C. B. Financial—Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Grants Division, ECA-IIP/EX/G. II. Award Information: *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. ECA's level of involvement in this program is listed under number I above. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY-2008 (pending availability of funds). *Approximate Total Funding:* $5,693,646—Administrative funding only; program funds provided as needed. *Number of Awards:* Two. *Approximate Average Award:* $2,846,823. *Floor of Award Range:* $1,122,760 (610 visitors). *Ceiling of Award Range:* $4,570,886 (1,576 visitors). *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, October 1, 2007. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* September 30, 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 these cooperative agreements for five additional fiscal years, before openly competing them again. III. Eligibility Information III.1. Eligible Applicants Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, award recipients must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as its 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 the recipient organization does not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements a. Bureau cooperative agreement guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates awarding two cooperative agreements: Award A is an amount up to $4,570,886; Award B in an amount up to $1,122,760 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. Program costs will be transferred directly to the award recipient based upon International Visitor workload, and should not be included in the proposal. The Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. b. Technical Eligibility: All proposals must comply with the technical eligibility requirements specified in the Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)and the Project Objectives, Goals, and Implementation
(POGI)documents. Failure to do so will result in proposals being declared technically ineligible and given no further consideration in the review process. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1. Contact Information to Request an Application Package Please contact the Office of International Visitors, Community Relations Division (ECA/PE/V/C), Room 247, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20547, telephone
(202)203-7193, fax
(202)453-8631 number, or e-mail *LampherMC@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number (ECA/PE/V-08-01) located at the top of this announcement when making your request. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction
(PSI)document which consists of required application forms and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. It also contains the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document, which provides specific information, award criteria and budget instructions tailored to this competition. Please specify Michelle Lampher and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number (ECA/PE/V-08-01) located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV.2. To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/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 application should be submitted 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 is 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 and the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. 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 the 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 Office of International Visitors (ECA/PE/V) 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)203-5029, *FAX:*
(202)453-8640. Please refer to Solicitation Package for further information. IV.3d.2. Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and disabilities. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into your proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible. IV.3d.3. Program Monitoring and Evaluation Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear objectives and outcomes at the outset of a program. In support of the Bureau's evaluation goals, the Office of International Visitors will administer a post-program evaluation survey to each International Visitor upon conclusion of the program. In addition, applicants must monitor and evaluate the program's success, both as activities unfold and at the end of each program. (See Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document.) Proposal submissions should include a monitoring and evaluation plan that demonstrates: An understanding of overall IVLP goals, as well as the objectives of assigned projects; the anticipated results and outcomes, including specific changes in International Visitors' behavior, knowledge, skills, and status resulting from the program activities; and the link between the outcomes and the original project objectives. Proposals should further demonstrate how applicants will obtain an understanding of the goals and objectives of each assigned IVL program, and how applicants will review and analyze the outcomes and results upon conclusion of each IVL program. For regional and multi-regional programs, participation at a final oral evaluation session is expected and a final program report is required. (See Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document.) Proposal submissions should demonstrate how award recipients will apply the feedback provided by International Visitors to strengthen the overall goals and objectives of the International Visitor Leadership Program. IV.3d.4. Program Management Proposals should describe the applicant's plans for: Overall program management, staffing, coordination with ECA and PAS or any other requirements, sustainability etc. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing the proposed budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. Funding levels are listed under Section II of this announcement. 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)Staff Salaries and Benefits;
(2)Office and Program Supplies;
(3)Telephone and Communications;
(4)Staff Travel and Per Diem;
(5)ADP Equipment Maintenance and IT Costs;
(6)Indirect Costs Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3F. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission *Application Deadline Date:* Tuesday, June 12, 2007. *Reference Number:* ECA/PE/V-08-01. *Methods of Submission:* Applications may be submitted in one of two ways: 1. In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail), 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.1 Submitting Printed Applications Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages *may not* be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and 10 copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, *Ref.:* ECA/PE/V-08-01, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. 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* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with Grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support. *Contact Center Phone:* 800-518-4726. *Business Hours:* Monday-Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time. *E-mail:* *support@grants.gov.* Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time, of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the Grants.gov system and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from Grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety. ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office. 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 or cooperative agreements resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. V.2. 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. *Evidence of Understanding/Program Planning:* The proposal should convey that the applicant has a good understanding of the overall goals and objectives of the IVL program. It should exhibit originality, substance, and precision, and be responsive to the requirements stated in the RFGP and the Solicitation Package. The proposal should contain a detailed and relevant work plan that demonstrates substantive intent and logistical capacity. The agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described in the RFGP and the POGI. 2. *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). 3. *Institutional Capacity:* The award recipient must have a Washington, DC presence. Applicants who do not currently have a Washington, DC presence must include a detailed plan in their proposal for establishing such a presence by October 1, 2007. The costs related to establishing such a presence must be borne by the award recipient. No such costs may be included in the budget submission in this proposal. The proposal should clearly demonstrate the applicant's capability for performing the type of work required by the IVL program and how the institution will execute its program activities to meet the goals of the IVL program. It should reflect the applicant's ability to design and implement, in a timely and creative manner, professional exchange programs which encompass a variety of project themes. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program goals. The proposal must demonstrate that the applicant has or can recruit adequate and well-trained staff. All recipients must submit their IVL program and national itinerary data electronically to the DoS by utilizing either the eNPA tool provided by the Department or the mandated standard data format submission that has been established as an interface to existing legacy systems. 4. *Institution's Record/Ability:* The proposal should demonstrate an institutional record of a minimum of four years of successful experience in conducting IVL or other professional exchange programs, which are similar in nature and magnitude to the scope of work outlined in this solicitation. The applicant must demonstrate the potential for programming IVL participants from multiple regions of the world. Applicants should demonstrate that their organizations would consult with DoS program officers on a regular basis to ensure that the assigned visitor projects would consistently meet program objectives. Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau cooperative agreements as determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 5. *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 description of the methodology to be used to link outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. 6. *Cost-effectiveness:* The overhead and administrative components of the proposal, including salaries and honoraria, should be kept as low as possible. This includes acquiring and retaining capable staff. All other costs, such as building maintenance, should be necessary and appropriate. 7. *Cost-sharing:* 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, and 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 Mandatory Reporting Requirements Award recipients must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus one copy of the following reports: 1. A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award. This report must disclose cost sharing and be certified by the award recipient's chief financial officer or an officer of comparable rank. 2. Quarterly financial reports within thirty
(30)days following the end of the calendar year quarter. These reports should itemize separately International Visitor costs, Voluntary Visitor costs, English Language Officer/Interpreter costs for International Visitors, English Language Officer/Interpreter costs for Voluntary Visitors, special project costs by projects, and administrative costs for the previous quarter on a cash basis. These reports should also list separately the number of English Language Officers/Interpreters accompanying International Visitors, and the number of English Language Officers/Interpreters accompanying Voluntary Visitors for whom funds are expended. Quarterly financial reports must be certified by the award recipient's chief financial officer or an officer of comparable rank. For further information, please refer to the 2008 Program Objectives, Goals, and Implementation
(POGI)document. 3. Such operating, statistical, and financial information relating to the program as may be requested by the DoS to meet its reporting requirements and answer inquiries concerning the operation of the IVL program, as stipulated in the FY 2008 Program Objectives, Goals, and Implementation. 4. Reports analyzing evaluation findings should be provided to the Bureau in award recipient's 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 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. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Michelle Lampher, Office of International Visitors, Community Relations Division, Room 247, Reference Number ECA/PE/V-08-01, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, telephone 202-203-7193, fax 202-453-8631, or e-mail *LampherMC@state.gov* . All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/PE/V-08-01. 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 12, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-7463 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Final Environmental Impact Statement—Nolichucky Reservoir Flood Remediation Project AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision. SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. TVA has decided to adopt Alternative A—No Action, the preferred alternative identified in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Nolichucky Reservoir Flood Remediation Project. In implementing Alternative A, TVA would continue to provide updated flood level information to local agencies and individuals. This would not preclude TVA working with individual landowners to address problems in the future. TVA would take no other action to address the impacts of flooding of private land and property around Nolichucky Reservoir. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles P. Nicholson, NEPA Program Manager, Environmental Stewardship & Policy, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401; telephone
(865)632-3582 or e-mail *cpnicholson@tva.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nolichucky Dam was built by the Tennessee Eastern Electric Company in 1913 at mile 46 on the Nolichucky River, about 7.5 miles south of Greeneville, Greene County, Tennessee. Nolichucky Reservoir, also known as Davy Crockett Lake, extends upstream about 6 miles from the dam. TVA acquired the project in 1945 and operated it as a single-purpose power production facility. By 1945, sand and silt from mining in the upper Nolichucky watershed in western North Carolina had begun to fill the reservoir. The sediment in the reservoir continued to accumulate to the point that TVA removed the electric generators from service between 1965 and 1972. Since 1972, the project has been jointly managed by TVA, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and local organizations for wildlife management, environmental education, and recreation. The Federal government owns approximately 1,400 acres of land under and around Nolichucky Reservoir and holds easements giving it the right to flood an additional 370 acres of land along this part of the river. At the time TVA acquired these landrights in 1945, the landrights did not include all of the area affected by Nolichucky Dam during flood events. Since then, the 100-year flood elevation has increased up to 10 feet due to the accumulated sediment in the reservoir. The federal landrights include about 54 percent of the area within the present 500-year floodplain and about 63 percent of the area within the 100-year floodplain. TVA published a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS in the **Federal Register** on January 12, 2000. Public and agency scoping meetings were held on January 20, 2000; 52 people attended the public scoping meeting. Scoping comments were received from one Federal agency, one nongovernmental organization, and seven individuals. Following a series of agency and public workshops, the Draft EIS was released in January 2002 and the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on February 8, 2002. TVA held a public meeting on the Draft EIS in on February 21, 2002 and accepted comments through March 29, 2002. Comments on the Draft EIS were received from 65 individuals. Two federal agencies and three state agencies. The Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on November 3, 2006. Alternatives Considered TVA identified four alternatives in the EIS. Under Alternative A—No Action, TVA would provide updated flood level information to local agencies and individuals but would not take any other actions to address flood impacts on nonfederal lands. TVA would continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. TVA would maintain the reservoir's recreational uses through agreements with other agencies and organizations that provide for wildlife management, environmental education, and public parks. Under Alternative B—Acquire Landrights, TVA would address flood impacts on nonfederal lands by acquiring either fee title or easements with the right to flood all of the nonfederal land within the present 500-year floodplain around Nolichucky Reservoir (about 1,060 acres). If TVA acquired fee title, TVA would buy the affected land and all structures built on it and would hold all rights concerning use of that land. If TVA acquired only a flowage easement, TVA would buy the right to overflow and flood specific parts of the property on an intermittent and temporary basis. The owner could continue to use the easement land in many ways, but would relinquish the right to build structures below a specific elevation and would have to receive TVA approval prior to developing the affected land. TVA would maintain the reservoir's recreational uses through agreements with other agencies and organizations that provide for wildlife management, environmental education, and public parks. Most new land acquired in fee would probably be added to the existing wildlife management area. TVA would continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. This alternative could be implemented within 3 years and would cost between $15 and $20 million. Under Alternative C—Lower Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address flood impacts on nonfederal lands by lowering the Nolichucky Dam spillway after removing or stabilizing sediment in the reservoir. The spillway would be lowered by about 40 feet so that the 500-year flood elevation would only affect land already in federal ownership or covered by flowage easement. This would reduce the reservoir pool area from 455 to about 160 acres and convert much of it into a more riverine environment. All federal land around the reservoir would remain in public ownership and would continue to be used for wildlife management, environmental education, and public parks. TVA would continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as required by federal dam safety regulations and to preserve their historic value. This alternative would require 5 to 10 years to implement and cost between $45 and $70 million. Under Alternative D—Remove Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address flood impacts on nonfederal lands by removing all visible components of Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse and removing or stabilizing sediment in the reservoir. In accordance with historic preservation requirements, TVA would document the dam and powerhouse and preserve qualifying equipment. Up to 19,000 acre-feet (30 million cubic yards) would be removed from the reservoir area and deposited on nearby lands. In cooperation with appropriate state and local agencies, TVA would determine how the federal lands would be used, probably as parts of modified versions of the existing wildlife management, environmental education, and public park areas. This alternative would require 10 to 12 years to implement and cost between $90 and $150 million. TVA did not identify a preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. TVA identified Alternative A—No Action as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Comments on the Final EIS TVA received comments on the Final EIS from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and one individual affected by the flooding. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency expressed a preference for Alternative B. The Environmental Protection Agency did not express a preference for any alternative and noted the positive and negative aspects of each alternative. They did, however, suggest further consideration of Alternative B. TVA has carefully considered Alternative B and, as described below, decided to adopt Alternative A. The Environmental Protection Agency requested a more detailed analysis of the potential impacts of the preferred No Action Alternative on minority and low-income populations. The Environmental Justice analysis in the FEIS was based on relatively large census tracts and concluded that the action alternatives would not result in disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations. TVA has repeated this analysis for minority populations using data from smaller census blocks adjoining Nolichucky Reservoir. Minority populations made up about 1.2 percent of the year 2000 population of 578 persons in these blocks. This proportion is well below the national, state, and county levels, and below that of the larger census tracts in which the blocks are located. The population within this area is well dispersed and there are few concentrations of residents within the floodplain. Data on low-income populations are not available for individual census blocks. A small cluster of low-cost housing occurs in the floodplain on the right bank of the reservoir; housing on the left bank is widely dispersed with no similar clusters. Due to the low percentage of minority populations, the low poverty level in much of the area, and the scattered location of housing in most of the area, no disproportionate effect on minority or low-income populations is anticipated. Decision TVA has decided to adopt Alternative A—No Action. Alternative A—No Action was selected over the other alternatives because it would result in few, if any, additional adverse environmental impacts, and could be implemented at little cost to TVA. As described in the FEIS, TVA has determined that the rate of sediment inflow into Nolichucky Reservoir has greatly decreased in recent years, and the present sediment inflow rate is likely close to the sand dredging removal rate of around 70,000 tons per year. Based on this sediment inflow rate, there is little potential for flood damage to lands and existing structures within the floodplain to markedly increase in the future, even in the absence of sand dredging. TVA, however, would continue to permit qualified sand dredging operations to operate in the reservoir, further reducing the potential for increased future flood damages. While the risk of flooding would slowly decrease under this alternative assuming sand dredging continues, the risk of flooding non-federal property would continue. Community awareness of flood risk, however, has increased in part because of this EIS process, and because TVA has provided updated flood level information to the community. In the event that flooding of some property occurs in the future, TVA would address it on a case by case basis as it has in the past. In reaching this decision, TVA has carefully considered both the comments and concerns voiced by the public and the results of the impact analyses. There was some support for each alternative. Based on the comments TVA received during the scoping and EIS review processes, there was strong public support for maintaining the reservoir and the existing recreational uses of the reservoir and adjacent public lands; Alternative A does this. Alternatives C and D would eliminate the dam-related flooding. In doing so, they would partially or fully eliminate the reservoir and many of its current recreational uses. They would also destroy the wetlands habitats around the reservoir, and adversely affect the Nolichucky River downstream of the dam. While Alternative B would not have the adverse impacts of Alternatives C and D, it would cost $15 to $20 million to implement and could result in the relocation of many homeowners or restrictions on use of their property. None of the alternatives would restore the recreational benefits that once existed at Nolichucky Reservoir and have since been lost due to the accumulation of sediment. TVA has determined that the implementation of Alternative A would not affect historic properties and has consulted with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO)in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The SHPO concurred with TVA's determination on April 28, 2005. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also concurred that implementation of Alternative A would not adversely affect federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative because it would accomplish the project purpose of alleviating the flood impacts on private land and property, would not involve any adverse impacts on the surrounding natural and human environment, would increase the land area available for public recreation, and would enhance the conservation of many resources. Even though Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative, Alternative A also would not have adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation Alternative A—No Action that TVA has selected is not anticipated to adversely affect natural or human resources, and consequently TVA has determined that no associated mitigation measures are necessary. TVA does commit, however, to providing updated flood level information to local agencies and individuals so that they are better aware of flooding risks. Dated: April 13, 2007. Kathryn J. Jackson, Executive Vice President, River System Operations & Environment. [FR Doc. E7-7439 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [OST-2007-27909] Advisory Committee on Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Case Study AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of meeting of advisory committee. SUMMARY: This document announces the second meeting of the Advisory Committee on Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Case Study to the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “Advisory Committee”). The purpose of this meeting is to advise the Secretary of Transportation on the design, implementation and final report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7, which examines how a changing climate might affect transportation infrastructure and services in the Gulf Coast. This research is being conducted under the Climate Change Science Program. DATES: The second meeting of the Advisory Committee is scheduled for May 16-17, 2007, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Tremont House, 2300 Ship's Mechanic Row, Galveston, Texas 77550. Phone: 409-763-0300. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Savonis, the Designated Federal Official, Office of Natural and Human Environment, 202-366-2080, ( *michael.savonis@dot.gov* ), Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Through consultation with transportation professionals, researchers, and partners, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)has identified a need within the transportation community for improved information about climate variability and change when making transportation decisions. A sound transportation system is vital to the nation's social and economic future. Investments in transportation are substantial, and result in infrastructure that is designed to last for decades. Transportation plans and designs should therefore be carefully considered and well informed by a range of factors, including consideration of climate variability and change. Climate also affects the safety, operations, and maintenance of transportation infrastructure and systems. This research will investigate the potential impacts of climate variability and change on transportation infrastructure and its operation, and provide guidance as to how transportation planners and decision makers may incorporate this information into transportation planning decisions to ensure a reliable and robust future transportation network. The Gulf Coast Study was selected by DOT as the first of a series of research activities that the Center will pursue to address these research priorities. This initial product will focus on the low-lying Gulf of Mexico coastal region, which has little topographic relief but it is heavily populated. In addition, the area's transportation modes are both unique and economically significant. For example, the Ports of New Orleans and Houston are the top two ranking U.S. ports in tonnage. Roughly two thirds of all U.S. oil imports are transported through this region. Pipelines traversing the region transport over 90 percent of domestic Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. Almost half of the Nation's repetitive flood damage claims are paid to homeowners and businesses in this region, and the efficacy of evacuation during storms is an important determinant of the safety and well-being of the region's population. This region is subject to the direct effects of hurricanes and tropical storms. Given its low elevation, the area is also particularly vulnerable to flooding and storm surges that accompany hurricanes and tropical storms. These effects may be exacerbated by global sea level rise and local land subsidence. To carry out this study, the U.S. DOT published a notice of intent to form an Advisory Committee in the **Federal Register** on June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35986). That notice, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), announced the establishment of the Committee and invited comments on the nominations for membership. The U.S. DOT anticipates that this will be the last meeting of this Advisory Committee. Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements for the record. Attendance will necessarily be limited by the size of the meeting room. The agenda topic for this meeting will include a review of the draft report. Issued this 13th Day of April, 2007 in Washington, DC. Robert DeHaan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy. [FR Doc. E7-7435 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27389] Notice of Request for Comments on Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection: FMCSA COMPASS Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for information. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the new Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This information collection involves the assessment of FMCSA's strategic decision to integrate its Information Technology
(IT)with its business processes using portal technology to consolidate its systems and databases and launch a modernization initiative to create the FMCSA COMPASS Portal. The information to be collected will be used to assess the satisfaction of Federal, State and industry customers with the FMCSA COMPASS Portal. The Agency published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR in October 2006 (71 FR 61824, Oct. 19, 2006). The Agency did not receive any comments from the public that were responsive to this notice. DATES: Please send your comments by May 21, 2007. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention:* DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Coleman, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; phone:
(202)366-4440; fax:
(202)493-0679; e-mail: *bill.coleman@dot.gov.* Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* FMCSA Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-xxxx. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Respondents:* Federal, State, and motor carrier industry customers/users. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 142,691 [140,000 motor carrier industry respondents + 2,691 State government users = 142,691]. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 minutes per response. *Frequency of Response:* Three times per year (or every 120 days). *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 25,106 hours [(5 minutes to complete survey × 3 times per year/60 minutes × 140,000 annual industry respondents × .70 (70%) response rate = 24,500) + (5 minutes to complete survey × 3 times per year/60 minutes × 2,691 State government users × .90 (90%) response rate) = 25,106]. *Background:* Title II, section 207 of the E-Government Act of 2002, (Pub. L. 107-347, April 17, 2003) requires Government agencies to improve the methods by which government information, including information on the Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public. FMCSA has made a strategic decision to integrate its IT with its business processes as it consolidates its systems and databases and launches a modernization initiative called COMPASS. COMPASS is FMCSA's agency-wide initiative to improve its business processes; integrate them with the Agency's information systems; and make them more seamless, secure, and supportive of the Agency's mission of saving lives in the years to come. FMCSA's 21 information systems are currently operational. However, having this many stand-alone systems has led to data quality concerns, a need for excessive IDs and passwords, and significant operational and maintenance costs. Integrating our information technologies with our business processes will, in turn, improve our operations considerably, particularly in terms of data quality, ease of use, and reduction of maintenance costs. In early 2007, FMCSA will launch the first of a series of releases of new IT applications to its Federal, State, and industry customers. Over the coming years, more than 15 releases are planned, with four planned for the next 3 years. These releases will use “portal technology” to pull together numerous services and functions on a single screen and provide tailored services that seek to meet the needs of specific constituencies within our customer universe. The FMCSA COMPASS Portal will entail considerable expenditure of Federal Government dollars over the years and fundamentally impact the nature of the relationship between the Agency and its Federal, State, and industry customers. Consequently, the Agency intends to conduct regular and ongoing assessments of customer satisfaction with COMPASS. The primary purposes of this assessment are to determine the extent to which newly released FMCSA COMPASS Portal services meet the needs of Agency customers, identify and prioritize additional modifications, and determine the extent that the Portal has affected FMCSA's relationships with its main customer groups. The assessment will address: • Overall customer satisfaction; • Customer satisfaction with specific items; • Performance of contractor (for the system) against established objectives; • Desired adjustments and modifications to systems; • Value of investment to FMCSA and DOT; • Features that customers like best; and • Customer ideas for improving the site. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FMCSA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued on: April 10, 2007. D. Marlene Thomas, Associate Administrator, Administration. [FR Doc. E7-7410 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-26280; Notice 2] The Braun Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance The Braun Corporation (Braun) has determined that certain wheelchair lifts it produced in 2005 through 2006 do not comply with S6.4.9 of 49 CFR 571.403, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, “Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Braun has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.” Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on December 13, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 74993). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received no comments. To view the petition and all supporting documents, go to: *http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm* and enter Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26280. Affected are a total of approximately 15,992 model NL, NCL, and NVL wheelchair lifts produced between April 1, 2005 and July 19, 2006. S6.4.9.7 of FMVSS No. 403 requires: When tested in accordance with S7.12.1, each handrail must withstand 445 N (100 pounds force) applied at any point and in any direction on the handrail without more than 25 mm (1 inch) of displacement relative to the platform surface. After removal of the load, the handrail must exhibit no permanent deformation. In addition, S6.4.9.9 of FMVSS No. 403 requires: When tested in accordance with S7.12.2, each handrail must withstand 1,112 N (250 lbf) applied at any point and in any direction on the handrail without sustaining any failure, such as cracking, separation, fracture, or more than 100 mm (4 inches) of displacement of any point on the handrails relative to the platform surface. The noncompliant lifts do not meet the displacement requirements of S6.4.9.7 and S6.4.9.9. Braun described its noncompliance as follows: Following compliance tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration at MGA Research Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin, The Braun Corporation has confirmed through its investigation that it manufactured and distributed approximately 15,992 wheelchair lifts (from April 1, 2005 to July 19, 2006) whose handrails are unable to meet the requirements for displacement as defined in S6.4.9.7 and S6.4.9.9 of the standard. Braun has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production. Braun believes that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Braun stated that: The non-complying wheelchair lifts continue to meet the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In other words, they are able to withstand “a force of 100 pounds concentrated at any point on the handrail without permanent deformation of the rail or its supporting structure.” . . . The Braun Corporation has never received a claim or complaint of handrail failure resulting in an injury. . . . [T]he handrails have been utilized hundreds of millions, if not billions of times without incident. . . . [A]ny modifications, or upgrades imposed to ensure compliance with FMVSS 403 would appear to provide a statistically insignificant enhancement.” When NHTSA proposed handrail requirements in July 2000, it stated that the 445 N (100 lb) force applied at any point and in any direction on the handrail is to ensure that handrails are stable and have adequate clearance around them. The 445 N (100 lb) force is a test that represents normal use and the resulting deflections should not cause the passenger to become unstable or allow his hands which are grasping the handrails to interact with any portion of the vehicle. Such results would be a safety concern. The 1,112 N (250 lb) force is a test that assures that handrails are sufficiently strong to prevent catastrophic failure. If a handrail is overloaded, it is allowed to deflect further, however, it would be undesirable for the handrail to fracture which could cause it to collapse. The July 27, 2000 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (65 FR 46228) and the December 2002 final rule (67 FR 79416) have the same handrail requirements and test procedures. In addition to these functional requirements, maximum displacement limits are specified. In NHTSA's compliance test on the Braun lift, the 445 N (100 lb) force was applied downward on the handrail and the deflection of 51 mm exceeded the requirement's limit of 25 mm. The 1,112 N (250 lb) force was applied downward and the deflection of 124 mm exceeded the requirement's limit of 100 mm. During application of the 1,112 N (250 lb) force, however, the handrail did not exhibit cracking, separation or fracture. Although the Braun lift handrail, when tested with a downward force, exceeded the displacement limits by 26 mm at 445 N (100 lb) and 24 mm at 1,112 N (250 lb), the handrail gradually deflected downward and did not fail catastrophically. This type of failure would not cause the passenger to become unstable, adversely interact with the vehicle, or pose a safety concerns that the handrail requirements were intended to address. NHTSA is reviewing its laboratory test procedure as applicable to the handrail protocols to assess compliance with S6.4.9. It is anticipated that future tests will specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety problems. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Braun's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliances. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: April 12, 2007. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-7412 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application for Special Permits AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits. SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2007. *Address Comments to:* Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC or at *http://dms.dot.gov.* This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). Issued in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2007. Delmer Billings, Director, Special Permits & Approvals Programs, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits & Approvals. New Special Permits Application number Docket number Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permits thereof 14487-N Osmose Inc. Millington, TN 49 CFR 173.212 To authorize the one-way transportation in commerce of Arsenic trioxide, Division 6.1, PG II in non-DOT specification drums. (mode 1) 14492-N Tankbouw Rootselaar B.V. The Netherlands 49 CFR 178.276(a)(1) and (a)(2) To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale and use of non-DOT specifications portable tanks conforming with the 2004 edition (+2005 Addenda) of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code for the transportation in commerce of certain Division 2.1 and 2.2 hazardous materials. (modes 1, 2, 3) 14493-N Thermacore, Inc. Lancaster, PA 49 CFR 173.306(e) To authorize the transportation in commerce of non-DOT specification containers (heat pipes) containing anhydrous ammonia for use in specialty cooling applications (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 14494-N Airgas, Inc. Cheyenne, WY 49 CFR 172.202, 172.301(a), and 172.301(c) To authorize the transportation in commerce of cylinders that are marked with obsolete proper shipping descriptions to allow for their return. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 14495-N GE Healthcare Arlington Heights, IL 49 CFR 173.302(a), 175.3 To authorize the transportation in commerce of a Division 2.2 gas in a non-DOT specification cylinder (modes 1, 4) 14496-N Oilphase Division, Schlumberger Eval. & Production
(UK)Ltd Dyce, Aberdeen, UK 49 CFR 173.201(c), 173.202(c), 173.203(c), 172.301(f), 173.302(a), 173.304(d), 173.304(d), 175.3 To authorize the manufacture, marking, sale and use of non-DOT specifications cylinders similar to a DOT 3A for the transportation of Division 2.1 and 2.3 gases. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 14499-N Optimus International 49 CFR 173.304a(d)(3)(ii) AB To authorize the manufacture, marking, sale and use of non-DOT specification, nonrefillable inside containers similar to DOT-2P for certain Division 2.1 flammable gases. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 14500-N Northwest Respiratory Services St. Paul, MN 49 CFR 172.203(a); 177.834(h) To authorize the loading and unloading of DOT 4L cylinders without unloading them from a vehicle. (mode 1) 14504-N Medis Technologies Ltd. New York, NY 49 CFR 175.10(a) To authorize passengers and crewmembers on aircraft to carry on baggage containing micro fuel cell systems with a small quantity of sodium/potassium borohydride solution, a Class 8, PG II liquid and a small quantity of potassium hydroxide electrolyte solution, a Class 8, PG II liquid. (mode 5) [FR Doc. 07-1931 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
23 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 17 CFR 240.15
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78(f)(b)
  • Pub. L. 87-256
  • 22 CFR 62
  • Pub. L. 104-319
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • 18 USC 2339A
  • Pub. L. 107-347
  • 49 CFR 571.403
  • 49 CFR 573
  • 49 CFR 107
  • 49 CFR 1.53(b)
  • 49 CFR 173.212
  • 49 CFR 178.276(a)(1)
  • 49 CFR 173.306(e)
  • 49 CFR 172.202
  • 49 CFR 173.302(a)
  • 49 CFR 173.201(c)
  • 49 CFR 173.304
  • 49 CFR 172.203(a)
  • 49 CFR 175.10(a)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 78a
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
C.F.R.§ 121.1202
C.F.R.§ 121.1204
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite17 CFR 240.15
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cites 39 · 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.