Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations; Marking Requirements, 50183-50192 [05-16698]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
14. Section 522.1962 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
■
§ 522.1962
Promazine hydrochloride.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsors. See sponsors in
§ 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in
paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) No. 000856 for use as in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(ii)(A),
(c)(1)(iii), and (c)(2) of this section.
(2) No. 061623 for use as in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(ii)(B), and
(c)(1)(iii) of this section.
(c) Conditions of use—(1)Horses—(i)
Amount—(A) 0.2 to 0.5 milligrams per
pounds (mg/lb) body weight
intramuscularly or intravenously every
4 to 6 hours.
(B) 0.2 to 0.5 mg/lb body weight
intravenously as required.
(ii) Indications for use—(A) For use as
a tranquilizer, preanesthetic, or for
minor operative procedures in
conjunction with local anesthesia; and
as adjunctive therapy for tetanus.
(B) For use as a tranquilizer and
preanesthetic.
(iii) Limitations. Not for use in horses
intended for food. Federal law restricts
this drug to use by or on the order of
a licensed veterinarian.
(2) Dogs and cats—(i) Amount. 1 to 2
mg/lb body weight intramuscularly or
intravenously every 4 to 6 hours.
(ii) Indications for use. For use as a
tranquilizer, preanesthetic, for minor
operative procedures in conjunction
with local anesthesia, as adjunctive
therapy for tetanus, and as an antiemetic
prior to worming; or to prevent motion
sickness in dogs.
(iii) Limitations. Federal law restricts
this drug to use by or on the order of
a licensed veterinarian.
(2) See No. 017135 for use on dogs
and horses.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Conditions of use—(1) Amount.
Apply directly on the lesion with a
spatula or first place on a piece of gauze.
The preparation should remain on the
lesion for at least 24 hours. Use of a
bandage is optional.
(2) Indications for use. For prevention
or treatment of surface bacterial
infections of wounds, burns, and
cutaneous ulcers of dogs, cats, or horses.
(3) Limitations. For use only on dogs,
cats, and horses (not for food use). In
case of deep or puncture wounds or
serious burns, use only as recommended
by veterinarian. If redness, irritation, or
swelling persists or increases,
discontinue use; consult veterinarian.
§ 524.1600a
[Amended]
17. Section 524.1600a is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘, 000332’’.
■ 18. Section 524.2101 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
■
§ 524.2101
Selenium disulfide suspension.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsors. See Nos. 000061,
017135, and 050604 in § 510.600(c) of
this chapter.
(c) Conditions of use on dogs—(1)
Indications for use. For use as a
cleansing shampoo and as an agent for
removing skin debris associated with
dry eczema, seborrhea, and nonspecific
dermatoses.
(2) Amount. One to 2 ounces per
application.
PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND
TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW
ANIMAL DRUGS
(3) Limitations. Use carefully around
scrotum and eyes, covering scrotum
with petrolatum. Allow the shampoo to
remain for 5 to 15 minutes before
thorough rinsing. Repeat treatment once
or twice a week. If conditions persist or
if rash or irritation develops,
discontinue use and consult a
veterinarian.
15. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 524 continues to read as follows:
PART 529—OTHER DOSAGE FORM
NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
16. Section 524.1580b is amended by
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph
(d); by reserving new paragraph (c); and
by revising paragraph (b) and newly
redesignated paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 524.1580b
Nitrofurazone ointment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsors. See sponsors in
§ 510.600(c) of this chapter.
(1) See Nos. 000010, 000069, 050749,
051259, 058005, and 061623 for use on
dogs, cats, or horses.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
19. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 529 continues to read as follows:
■
Jkt 205001
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
§ 529.1526
■
§ 529.2090
■
[Removed]
20. Section 529.1526 is removed.
[Removed]
21. Section 529.2090 is removed.
Dated: June 30, 2005.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 05–16995 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50183
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
22 CFR Part 226
[Aid Reg 226]
RIN 0412–AA55
Administration of Assistance Awards
to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations; Marking Requirements
Agency for International
Development (USAID).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule implements
the statutory requirement that all USAID
programs be marked appropriately
overseas as ‘‘American Aid.’’ It does so
by adding a USAID regulation that
requires recipients of USAID funded
grants and cooperative agreements and
other assistance awards—with certain
Presumptive Exceptions and subject to a
waiver if warranted by specific
conditions in the cooperating country—
to mark programs, projects, activities,
public communications, and
commodities with the USAID Standard
Graphic Identity (USAID Identity,
defined below.
EFFECTIVE DATES: January 2, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Niemeyer (or designee), Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, USAID, Rm. 6.06.95, 1300
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20523; telephone: (202) 712–4776
(this is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 20, 2004, USAID published in
the Federal Register (69 FR 75885–
75887) a proposed rule to implement
fully Section 641 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
The Agency provided a forty five (45)day public comment period on the
proposed rule, which ended on
February 3, 2005. The Agency also
offered the public the opportunity to
submit comments by surface mail, email or fax.
I. Background
The marking of foreign aid as
assistance from the U.S. Government
was first required during the Marshall
Plan when Congress became concerned
about poorly marked U.S. foreign aid
donations to European countries.
USAID’s framework legislation, the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, section 641, requires that all
programs under the Foreign Assistance
Act, including assistance awards, be
identified appropriately overseas as
‘‘American Aid.’’ While USAID has
required its contractors to mark U.S.
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50184
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Government-funded foreign assistance,
that requirement has applied to
recipients of grants and cooperative
agreements only to the limited extent of
acknowledging USAID funding in
publications and media releases. A
Commission on Public Diplomacy
report, ‘‘Changing Minds, Winning
Peace: a New Strategic Direction for U.S.
Public Diplomacy in the Arab World,’’
both commends and encourages USAID
to continue to ‘‘become more forthright
about branding its activities, so
recipients know that they are receiving
contributions from the American
people.’’
Beneficiaries of U.S. aid receive
billions of dollars of foreign assistance
every year in the form of grants and
cooperative agreements, often with little
to no awareness that the assistance is
provided by the American people
through USAID. Clear evidence of the
new visibility and value of foreign aid
came in the aftermath of the recent U.S.
tsunami relief effort, the first time
USAID’s new ‘‘brand identity’’ was used
publicly. According to a State
Department study, in 2004, favorable
opinions of the U.S. were at record lows
in many Muslim countries. But, in early
2005, favorability of the U.S. nearly
doubled in Indonesia (from 37 to 66
percent) thanks to the massive delivery
of—for the first time ‘‘well branded’’—
U.S. foreign assistance. A Pew Research
study confirms this: ‘‘Positive opinions
of the U.S. in Indonesia, which had
plummeted to as low as 15 percent in
2003, also have rebounded to 38
percent. The U.S. tsunami aid effort has
been widely hailed there; 79 percent of
Indonesians say they have a more
favorable view of the U.S. as a result of
the relief efforts.’’ A senior U.S.
diplomat summarized the impact of our
campaign this way: ‘‘The people of
Ache (Indonesia) saw the branding; they
knew right away the U.S. Government
was responding. That absolutely had a
major impact on their perception of the
U.S. I think our new global branding is
a major foreign policy achievement.’’
Such awareness of the generosity of the
American people is an important part of
the U.S. Government’s public
diplomacy strategy and a critical part of
the post 9/11 war against terrorism.
USAID takes the following action to
ensure that the American people are
visibly acknowledged for their
generosity in providing foreign
assistance. USAID has carefully
considered comments to the proposed
rule, and adjusted the final rule in
response,1 as set out more fully below.
1 Changes to the proposed rule in the final rule
demonstrate that USAID has taken the comments
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
II. This Rule
A. Purpose of Rule
The purpose of this rule is to bring
USAID regulations into full alignment
with Section 641 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
which requires that all programs under
the Foreign Assistance Act be marked
appropriately overseas as ‘‘American
Aid.’’ USAID also takes this action for
the policy reasons noted above.
B. USAID Regulations Amended by Rule
This rule adds a new provision,
(§ 226.91), to 22 CFR part 226,
Administration of Assistance Awards to
U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations,
and amends § 226.2 by adding new
definitions.
The new § 226.91 applies to all
Federal financial assistance awarded by
USAID to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs). Award
documentation for such Federal
financial assistance will include
standard clauses that incorporate the
requirements of § 226.91, and USAID
internal directives will highlight,
explain, and incorporate § 226.91 by
reference.
1. Scope of the marking requirement.
The rule is intended to require marking
for all implementation activities
overseas under USAID funded grants
and cooperative agreements and other
assistance awards to NGOs, and to
require use of a marking provision in
any NGO-issued subaward of USAID
funding.
2. Threshold for marking
requirements. The rule applies to all
USAID partially or fully funded grants
and cooperative agreements and other
assistance awards to U.S. NGOs, and to
subawards of USAID funding issued by
U.S. NGOs.
3. Extent of the marking requirements.
In most cases, marking of a size and
prominence equivalent to that of the
recipients and/or other donors is
required. USAID reserves the right to
require marking of a greater size or
prominence on a per case basis, when
it is the majority donor of a program,
project, activity, public communication,
or commodity. In the event the recipient
or other donor does not chose to mark
with its own graphic identity or logo,
USAID reserves the right to require
marking with the USAID Identity.
into account, and all changes are a logical
outgrowth of the proposed rule and comments.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824
F.2d 1258, 1283 (1st Cir. 1987) (Agency can make
even substantial changes from proposed version as
long as changes are ‘‘in character with’’ and a
‘‘logical outgrowth of’’ proposed rule.).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
USAID has greatly reduced the
paperwork required to comply with this
rule by limiting those who must submit
it. The Agreement Officer will request a
‘‘Branding Strategy,’’ defined in 22 CFR
226.2, only from ‘‘Apparent Successful
Applicants,’’ defined in 22 CFR 226.2
for USAID funds which have been
recommended for award after technical
evaluation of their applications. The
Branding Strategy will describe how the
program will be named, promoted, and
communicated to beneficiaries and
cooperating country citizens and how
donors will be acknowledged. The
Branding Strategy will be a required
submission but will not be
competitively evaluated. The Branding
Strategy will be reviewed for adequacy,
negotiated, and included in the award
by the Agreement Officer. The
Agreement Officer also will request
Apparent Successful Applicants to
provide a ‘‘Marking Plan,’’ defined at 22
CFR 226.2., detailing the type (for
example, plaque or adhesive labels) and
level of marking (for example, every
computer or just one sign) for activities,
commodities, public communications
and other deliverable items that will
visibly bear the USAID Identity. The
Marking Plan also will be reviewed for
adequacy, negotiated, and included in
the award by the Agreement Officer.
The approved Marking Plan will be
used to monitor compliance with
marking requirements. Further, specific
marking instructions and examples will
be provided to recipients in the USAID
Partner Co-Branding Guide. USAID will
consult with interested parties on
development of the guide.
4. Exceptions. USAID has established
‘‘Presumptive Exceptions,’’ that may
apply to obviate marking requirements
where marking would interfere with
USAID and recipient program goals, or
marking would be inefficient or
ineffective. Applicants may request the
USAID Agreement Officer to approve
one or more applicable Presumptive
Exceptions as part of their Marking
Plan. Any approved exceptions will
apply for the life of the award, unless
provided otherwise. The ‘‘Presumptive
Exceptions’’ provision is described fully
at 22 CFR § 226.91 (h).
5. Waiver provisions. Because USAID
intends that marking requirements be
carried out reasonably, erring on the
side of safety, USAID has provided in
the rule an ‘‘emergency’’ waiver
authority for USAID Principal Officers,
defined at 22 CFR 226.2, who currently
exercise similar waiver authority for
marking requirements under contracts.
By virtue of being posted in the
cooperating country, Principal Officers
have access to current and relevant
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
information concerning political, safety
and security concerns, including that
provided by recipients, and can
anticipate adverse impact in the
cooperating country. No marking is
required while a waiver request is
pending determination by a USAID
Principal Officer. The waiver provision
is described fully below.
In sum, Presumptive Exceptions will
be approved by the Agreement Officers,
waivers by the Principal Officers.
Inclusion of the Presumptive Exceptions
provision is intended to address the
majority of common cases where USAID
marking requirements may not apply;
the waiver provision is intended to
address cooperating country political,
safety and security concerns,
emergencies, or special cases.
Please note, when marking with the
USAID Identity is not required due to an
exception or waiver, USAID may review
how program materials will be marked
if the USAID identity is removed.
6. Compliance. USAID will monitor
and enforce the approved Marking Plan
in USAID awards, and USAID’s Office
of the Inspector General will audit both
USAID and recipient compliance with
the approved Marking Plan. Recipients
in non-compliance with the Marking
Plan are subject to the suspension and
termination provisions of 22 CFR 226.61
and 226.62.
7. Costs. Recipients are required to
submit proposed costs for branding and
marking as part of their total cost
estimate, which may be revised and
negotiated when Apparent Successful
Applicants are required to submit a
Marking Plan. All marking costs that are
reasonable, allocable and allowable will
be funded by USAID.
III. Response to Comments Received on
the Proposed Rule
On December 20, 2004, USAID
published in the Federal Register
(Volume 69, Number 243, Page 75885–
75887) a Proposed Rule for
Administration of Assistance Awards to
U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations,
Marking Requirements. By February 3,
2005, the closing date for comments,
USAID received forty-seven (47)
comments, including comments from
NGOs that have received USAID
funding, trade associations that
represent them, and other interested
parties. All of the comments were read,
and most are discussed below and
reflected in the final rule, on the
following basis: While there is no legal
requirement to respond to every
comment or discuss every fact or
opinion included, all have been
considered that could potentially
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
challenge a fundamental premise or are
relevant and significant.
The following is a summary of
comments by issue, and the Agency’s
responses to those comments.
A. General Comments
Comment: Several comments
expressed concern that USAID restricted
discussion of the proposed marking
requirements by sending an Agency
notice to employees, requesting that all
comments on the proposed rule be made
through the rulemaking process.
Response: USAID engaged in
rulemaking to ensure that the proposed
rule would benefit from public
comment; to provide transparency; and
so all interested parties would have an
equal opportunity to comment, not just
those in the Washington area or with
access to USAID staff. The Agency
notice was intended to ensure that
comments by NGOs and other interested
parties would be taken into account
during a formal process, rather than
through informal conversations with
USAID employees who could not
directly affect its outcome. As part of
this formal rulemaking process, USAID
is bound by the ‘‘ex parte contact’’ rule
to limit comments to the rulemaking
process, to ensure the final rule was
based on comments in the public
record, as well as Agency expertise.
Comment: While there was nearly
uniform support for the purpose of the
proposed rule, to ensure that aid
recipients overseas understand that all
USAID-funded assistance awards are
from the American people, several
comments challenged the authority of
the Agency to issue a rule requiring
NGOs to mark USAID funded assistance
with the USAID Identity.
Response: USAID’s framework
legislation, the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as amended, Section 641,
provides that ‘‘[p]rograms under this
Act shall be identified appropriately
overseas as ‘American Aid.’ ’’ Section
621 of that same Act provides that the
head of USAID ‘‘may from time to time
promulgate such rules and regulations
as may be necessary’’ to carry out
Agency functions under the Act,
including Section 641 marking
requirements. This authority is not
contradicted, as one commenter argues,
because Congress did not say explicitly
how the marking requirement was to be
implemented. Under the above
authority, implementation is left to
Agency discretion.
Comment: Several comments also
questioned the timing and reason for the
rule, pointing out that USAID has
existing, less comprehensive marking
requirements for media products and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50185
publications in its standard provisions
for grants to NGOs.
Response: In response to the 9/11
tragedy, the U.S. national security
strategy has been revised to include, for
the first time, development along with
diplomacy and defense. As the lead
development assistance agency of the
U.S. Government, USAID has the
responsibility to ensure that
international development plays a vital
role in national security by ensuring
beneficiaries are aware the aid—
including the funding of grants and
cooperative agreements—is from the
American people. Recent surveys show
that more comprehensive marking
requirements result in a much more
favorable impression of the U.S abroad.
Comment: Several comments also
questioned the approval of the proposed
rule by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) or argued that before
engaging in rulemaking, USAID had to
seek a deviation from OMB under 22
CFR part 226.4.
Response: Both the proposed rule and
final rule have been reviewed by OMB’s
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs under Executive Order 12866.
The deviation procedure set forth at 22
CFR 226.4 is not pertinent. As noted
above, section 621 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
provides USAID with statutory
rulemaking authority. USAID used this
rulemaking authority to issue 22 CFR
part 226, Administration of Assistance
Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations, including section 226.1,
which provides that ‘‘[e]xcept as
otherwise authorized by statute, this
part establishes uniform administrative
requirements * * *’ As noted in the
proposed rule and above, marking is
expressly required by statute, and so
comes within the ‘otherwise authorized
by statute’ exception of § 226.1. Section
226.4, ‘‘Deviations,’’ is not related to the
purpose and applicability of the
regulations, but rather deviations from
their general applicability as authorized
by OMB and if not prohibited by statute.
The comments calling for USAID to
obtain an OMB deviation to engage in
rulemaking have the purpose of such a
deviation backwards: A deviation is not
required to permit rulemaking,
particularly when rulemaking is
expressly required by a statute—but to
deviate from rules already promulgated
by rulemaking and included in any part
226 of 22 CFR. Any reading of § 226.4
to the contrary contradicts with its plain
language, and would frustrate its
purpose by locking the current version
of 22 CFR part 226 in stone, a result
contrary to USAID’s express and
ongoing rulemaking authority, section
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50186
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended.
Comment: No similar policy
concerning marking is apparently being
pursued by the Department of State,
which has overall responsibility for
conduct of foreign relations. Thus the
marking requirement is simply ‘a
USAID attempt to raise its visibility.’
Response: The USAID marking
initiative, including the extension of full
marking requirements to NGOs, has
been coordinated with the U.S.
Department of State. Programs
implemented by the State Department,
such as the Middle East Partnership
Initiative (MEPI) and the President’s
Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR) under the authority of the
Global AIDS Coordinator, have their
own marking requirements. USAID is
the lead foreign assistance agency of the
U.S. Government, and it is appropriate
for USAID to exercise leadership in the
marking of foreign assistance. Because
USAID often plays a role in
implementing programs funded in part
or in whole by sister agencies such as
the Department of State, recipients may
be required to include the logo of other
U.S. Government agencies on USAID
funded programs, projects, activities,
public communications, and
commodities. In such circumstances,
guidance will be provided on a case by
case basis.
The characterization of the initiative
as simply a ‘USAID attempt to raise its
visibility overseas’ misinterprets the
intention of the message and the design
of the USAID Identity with its emphasis
not on USAID as the acronym for the
Agency but ‘US-AID’ (differentiated by
colors) as a ‘‘brand’’ of foreign
assistance, like Japanese or British aid,
as well as the emphasis of the tagline
‘‘From the American People.’’
Comment: USAID also received many
comments to the effect that the
proposed rule undercuts the
independence of grantees, oversteps the
Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act, makes grantees an arm
of the U. S. Government and, by
extending marking requirements, is
treating grantees like contractors.
Response: Marking is required by the
Foreign Assistance Act, as noted above.
Nothing in the marking requirement is
inconsistent with the definition of a
grant—to accomplish a public purpose
of support or stimulation authorized by
a federal statute—in this case the
Foreign Assistance Act. Marking does
not change the funding or purpose of a
grant or cooperative agreement. All the
marking requirement does is raise the
level of visibility of the American
people’s donation. Other donors to
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
NGOs require similar acknowledgement.
See EU Visibility Guidelines for
External Actions, November 2002. The
co-branding requirements established by
this rule are much less comprehensive
than USAID’s branding requirements for
contractors, which do not permit cobranding or marking with a contractor
logo, and establish rigorous design
standards similar to those used for
USAID’s own external communications.
Comment: Several comments
expressed concern that markings with
high visibility would block host-country
national ‘ownership’ of the program or
project, cause local citizens to view
projects adversely, compromise NGOs’
apolitical position in a cooperating
country or otherwise harm the
acceptance and effectiveness of
programs and projects in some
situations.
Response: The Branding Strategy and
Marking Plan submitted by the
Apparent Successful Applicant provides
the opportunity to propose a program or
project name, outline the promotional
and communication activities, and to
recommend which items are to be
marked. Such participation by
recipients ‘up front’ should ensure that
their concerns about marking
requirements are addressed in program
implementation. USAID also has
included a ‘‘Presumptive Exceptions’’
provision that may apply to obviate
marking requirements, see section
226.91(h) below. Also, USAID has
amended the ‘waiver provision’ of the
final rule to include waivers in case of
adverse reaction in the cooperating
country, see section 226.91(j), below.
USAID employees are dedicated
development professionals who share
NGO partners’ focus on designing and
implementing successful programs.
They are responsible for reporting
results and ultimately accountable to
the Executive Branch, Congress, and the
American people for return on their
investment. For these reasons, USAID
will ensure that use of markings does
not cause the program or project to fail.
Comment: Several comments
suggested including marking
requirements in the initial Request for
Proposals (RFPs) or Annual Program
Statements (APS) for implementation of
a program or project. The comments
also included many suggestions for
more flexibility in application of the
marking requirements.
Response: USAID has drafted the rule
to minimize the burden on applicants,
and to maximize flexibility. Only those
Apparent Successful Applicants who
have been recommended for award after
technical evaluation will be requested to
submit a Branding Strategy and Marking
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Plan by the Agreement Officer. Both the
Strategy and Plan enable implementing
partners to recommend how to
customize global marking requirements
to individual activities, subject to the
approval of the Agreement Officer.
Comment: The comments also
expressed concern over, and requested
clarification about, the breadth—for
example, ‘all’ commodities—of the
marking requirements.
Response: The Marking Plan enables
implementing partners to propose the
appropriate level of marking by
detailing program commodities that will
visibly bear the USAID Identity (for
example, mark all computers but not all
desks and chairs in a school room). The
new ‘Presumptive Exceptions’ provision
narrows the breadth of the marking
requirement on a case-by-case basis, as
set forth in the final rule. It also
includes a de minimis’ rule for items too
small or otherwise impracticable to
mark.
Comment: The comments also raised
calls for consultation by USAID on the
creation of the referenced ‘USAID
Partner Co-Branding Guide.’
Response: While the specific
implementation of statutory marking
requirements is well within USAID’s
sole discretion, USAID will actively
consult with interested parties on the
USAID Partner Co-Branding Guide.
Comment: Several comments
requested clarification that the marking
requirement does not apply to recipient
organization offices or vehicles.
Response: Because the intent of the
USAID marking requirements is to mark
programs and projects, not people, the
final rule does not require marking of
vehicles, offices, and other
administrative items for internal use by
the recipient. See Definitions,
‘‘Commodities,’’ § 226.2, below.
Comment: Many of the comments
raised security concerns and, while
praising the concept, additional
questions about the waiver procedure.
There was also considerable confusion
about application of the ‘no double
standard’ policy and requests to delete
the provision directing Mission
Directors to recommend removal of a
recipient organization’s own marking
when granting a waiver. Finally, there
were calls for waivers of longer than six
months duration without review and for
blanket waivers under certain
circumstances, such as when a recipient
was implementing a USAID funded
program in a country in which U.S.
Government employees received danger
pay or where there were active U.S.
Government military operations.
Response: USAID is determined to
implement these marking requirements
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
by erring on the side of safety.
Recipients in good faith may request a
waiver through the Cognizant Technical
Officer (CTO) at any time after award.
No marking is required while a waiver
determination is pending. The waiver
provision has been changed to clarify
that the ‘no double standard’ provision
requires the USAID Principal Officer
making the waiver determination to
consider at a minimum, information
provided by the recipient in its request
for the waiver (NGOs) and U.S
Government security information,
where available. The provision
concerning Principal Officers’
recommendations to recipients about
removal of their own markings has been
deleted. Decisions of the Principal
Officer can be appealed to that Principal
Officer’s cognizant Assistant
Administrator in USAID.
Comment: Several comments
expressed concern or confusion about
the provisions in the proposed rule at
§ 226.91(j) and (k), providing for
disclaimers of a U.S. Government
employment status for recipient
employees engaging in public speaking,
writing or promotional efforts
concerning the USAID funded program
or project, and disclaimers of U.S.
Government employment status for use
of the USAID Identity on employee
business cards or other personally
identifying materials.
Response: Sections 226.91(j) and (k)
in the proposed rule have been deleted
from the final rule. Recipients must seek
guidance from the Cognizant Technical
Officer (CTO) concerning any employee
use of the USAID Identity on employee
business cards or other personally
identifying materials.
Miscellaneous changes to the final
rule based on general comments or
Agency review: The non-retroactivity
provision has been clarified in the final
rule, and an additional presumptive
exception has been added to address
International Committee of the Red
Cross concerns that any required
marking not violate international
neutrality standards. The final rule also
is clarified to state expressly that
marking applies to commodities
provided under Title II Food Aid; the
Food Aid regulations at 22 CFR 211 will
be subsequently amended to take into
account this final rule. Finally,
§§ 226.91(f) Exceptions and 226.91(g)
Waivers in the proposed rule have been
re-lettered 226.91(h) Exceptions and
§ 226.91(j) Waivers in the final rule.
B. Comments on Specific Provisions
Comment, 226.2., Definitions: several
comments called for USAID to define
further terms such as activity,
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
equipment, programs, projects, and
supplies.
Response: USAID has amended the
definitions section to include
definitions of ‘‘Activity,’’ ‘‘Programs,’’
‘‘Projects,’’ ‘‘Principal Officers,’’
‘‘Subrecipient’’ and ‘‘Technical
Assistance’’ from USAID’s Automated
Directive System Glossary. In addition,
definitions of ‘‘Apparent Successful
Applicant,’’ ‘‘Branding Strategy’’ and
‘‘Marking Plan’’ have been added.
‘‘Equipment’’ and ‘‘Supplies’’ are
already defined at 22 CFR 226.2.
Comment, 226.90, Appeals: several
comments called for USAID to explicitly
provide an appeals process for a USAID
Principal Officer’s determination
regarding a waiver request.
Response: Agreed. Decisions of the
Principal Officer can be appealed to that
Principal Officer’s cognizant Assistant
Administrator in USAID.
Comment, 226.91(a), ‘‘all programs,
projects, activities, public
communications and commodities
funded by USAID’’: several comments
were concerned about the breadth of the
marking requirement, and requested a
‘de minimis’ exception to marking
requirements or further definition of the
terms commodities, supplies and the
like.
Response: USAID provides an
exclusion for vehicles, offices and nonprogram deliverable, administrative
items for recipient’s internal use in the
definition of ‘commodities’, see
definitions, § 226.2, and also a
‘Presumptive Exceptions’ provision for
items too small or impracticable to
mark, see section § 226.91 (h)(5).
Comment, § 226.91(a), applicability to
subawards: Several comments asked for
clarification or recommended that
marking requirements not ‘flow down’
to subawards.
Response: A ‘flow down’ required
clause is included in the final rule.
Because subrecipients are the final
implementing partner for many USAID
funded grants and cooperative
agreements, the marking requirements
would have only limited effect on
cooperating country recipients unless
the marking requirements flow down to
subawards and subrecipients.
Comment, § 226.91(a)(1)–(3): There
were many comments questioning the
application of the three-tiered
‘percentage of funding’ trigger for
marking requirements.
Response: the three-tiered system has
been deleted and replaced with a much
simpler provision requiring marking
with the USAID Identity of a size and
prominence equivalent to that of the
recipient or other donors for all grants
or cooperative agreements or other
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50187
awards or subawards which USAID is
partially or fully funding. USAID
reserves the right to require marking of
a greater size on a per case basis, when
it is the majority donor.
Comment, § 226.91(c): Several
comments raised concerns that
overzealous USAID marking
requirements might compromise or
undercut program or project goals or
conflict with local practices or laws.
Response: USAID has added a
‘Presumptive Exceptions’ provision that
will apply, at the Agreement Officer’s
discretion, to obviate marking
requirements where marking would
interfere with USAID and recipient
goals, or marking would be inefficient,
ineffective, or in conflict with local
norms. There is also an exception if
marking would be contrary to
international law. Recipients will have
a chance to request approval of these or
any other applicable Presumptive
Exceptions in their Marking Plan. All
applicable exceptions will be approved
and included in the Marking Plan by the
USAID Agreement Officer.
Comment, § 226.91(d): There were
several requests to define further
‘technical assistance’ and state exactly
what must be marked. In addition,
specific concern was expressed that the
application of marking requirements to
election materials and monitoring,
independent media programs, public
service announcements and other
independent radio or television
broadcasts, and civil and human rights
work might undercut the goals of those
programs in fostering a civil society
independent from identification with
the cooperating country government or
other state actors.
Response: USAID has included a
definition of ‘‘technical assistance’’ in
the final rule at § 226.2. USAID has also
included a ‘Presumptive Exceptions’
section in the final rule, see § 226.91 (h),
which addresses concerns about
marking election or democracy
materials, independent media products,
and other politically sensitive programs,
projects, or activities.
Comments, § 226.91(f), waivers: There
were many comments and questions
about application of the waiver
provisions. While there was widespread
support of the waiver concept,
comments differed on its proposed
application. USAID was advised to
consider waivers of an indeterminate
duration; to vest waiver authority in,
variously, the Agreement Officer, the
CTO, an official whose performance was
not tied to desired Agency outcomes in
a particular country; or to create a
‘marking’ ombudsman. Several
comments expressed concern that
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50188
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Mission Directors or other Principle
Officers have not readily exercised other
waiver authorities, or would be
restrained in their exercise of waiver
authority by Ambassadors or other State
Department officials.
Response: As noted above in General
Comments, changes have been made to
the waiver provision based on
comments received in the rulemaking
process. Specifically, USAID accepts the
comment that the waivers be of longer
than six months duration; the waiver
term has been changed to provide for a
waiver of unlimited duration but one
that is subject to Principal Officer
review at any time due to changed
circumstances. USAID also accepts the
suggestion that an appeal process be
provided, and allows the Principal
Officer’s waiver decision to be appealed
to the cognizant Assistant Administrator
in USAID.
Despite these changes, the waiver
authority remains in the first instance
with the USAID Principal Officers at an
overseas post. USAID has confidence in
its senior officials on the ground, who
as a class have been making waiver
determinations on marking
requirements for contractors and
waivers in other sensitive areas, for
years. The appeals process provides for
reconsideration of Principal Officer
determinations.
Comment. § 226.91(g), role of CTOs in
monitoring: Several comments
expressed concern that the CTO was
required to ‘police’ marking
requirements.
Response: USAID intends that the
marking requirements, like other
requirements of the USAID grant or
cooperative agreement or other
assistance award, be monitored and, if
need be, enforced. USAID has
simplified and clarified the process: the
Marking Plan, once it is approved and
incorporated in the award, becomes the
basis for CTO monitoring. USAID will
be amending its internal ‘CTO
Designation Letter’ and providing
specific training to CTOs to cover these
new responsibilities.
Comment, § 226.91(h), materiality of
marking requirement: Several comments
expressed concern or even intimidation
about the designation of the marking
requirement as a ‘material’ provision of
the grant or cooperative agreement.
Response: The term ‘material’ has
been deleted, and the enforcement
provisions are the same uniform
suspension and termination provisions
that apply to all other provisions of the
award, see 22 CFR 226.61 and 226.62.
Comment, § 226.91(j): There were
several comments that pointed out the
incorrect reference to the cost principles
OMB Circular A–110 in the proposed
rule.
Response: The reference has been
corrected to the cost principles of OMB
Circular A–122.
Comment, § 226.91(k): One comment
objected to the proposed requirement
that recipients of USAID funded grants
and cooperative agreements must have
an organization policy in turn requiring
recipient employees to state they are not
representing USAID and their comments
do not necessarily reflect the views of
USAID, when speaking, writing,
teaching or engaging in promotional
efforts regarding USAID funded
programs or projects.
Response: This proposed provision
has been deleted from the final rule,
along with the proposed provision
concerning the recipient’s employee’s
use of the USAID Identity on employee
business cards and other personally
identifying material, § 226.91 (j). As
stated above, recipients should consult
with their CTOs concerning any use of
the USAID Identity by recipient’s
employees on personally identifying
materials such as business cards.
Findings and Certifications
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
OMB has determined that the
requirements for Apparent Successful
Applicants to submit a Branding
Strategy and Marking Plan are by virtue
of inclusion in this regulation
information collections affecting the
public within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The
requirement to submit a Branding
Strategy and Marking Plan will not take
effect until publication of OMB
approval of the collection of information
by separate notice in the Federal
Register.
This notice initiates the public
comment period on the collection of
information required by the requirement
to submit a Branding Strategy and
Marking Plan. The proposed
information collection consists of the
requirement for Apparent Successful
Applicants to Submit a Branding
Strategy and Marking Plan, defined in
this regulation. No record keeping
burden is known to result from the
proposed collection of information.
Estimated total annual reporting
burden for the period January 2006–
January 2009 that will result from the
collections of information is presented
below:
PROJECTED ANNUAL BURDEN DATA
Question
Estimated value
Annual number of expected respondents .............................................................................................................
Frequency of responses ........................................................................................................................................
Total number of responses expected ....................................................................................................................
Average response time per respondent, including negotiation .............................................................................
Total annual response time for the collection .......................................................................................................
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8. (d)(1),
USAID is seeking comment on the above
requirement to submit a Branding
Strategy and Marking Plan. Specifically,
the public is invite to
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) Minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
500.
One time.
500 annually.
8 hours.
500 * 8 hour = 4000 hours.
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses. Written comments should be
sent within 60 days of the date of this
notice by email to
‘markingnprm@usaid.gov’ or by surface
mail to John Niemeyer, Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, USAID, Rm. 6.06.95, 1300
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20523; telephone: (202) 712–4776
(this is not a toll-free number).
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, requires that
regulations be reviewed to ensure that
they are consistent with the priorities
and principles set forth in the EO 12866.
As discussed above, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
reviewed this rule at USAID’s request.
This rulemaking implements statutory
authority and reflects USAID’s response
to comments received on the proposed
rule published on December 20, 2004 in
the Federal Register (69 FR 75885–87).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)) requires the Federal
government to anticipate and reduce the
impact of rules and paperwork
requirements on small businesses and
other small entities. In accordance with
that Act, the USAID Deputy
Administrator has reviewed and
approved this rule, and in so doing
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538) establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local,
and tribal governments, and on the
private sector. This rule does not
impose any Federal mandates on any
state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, within the meaning of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Assessment of Federal Regulation and
Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to
determine whether a proposed policy or
regulation may affect family well-being.
If the agency’s determination is
affirmative, then the agency must
prepare an impact assessment
addressing seven criteria specified in
the law. The Agency has determined
that these regulations will not have an
impact on family well-being as defined
in the legislation.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
requires that Federal agencies consult
with state and local government officials
in the development of regulatory
policies with federalism implications.
The Agency has determined that this
rule does not have federalism
implications that require special
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
consultations with state and local
government officials.
Intergovernmental Review
This Final Rule affects direct grant
programs that are subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive Order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and to
promote federalism by relying on
processes developed by state and local
governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
The Agency has concluded that this
rule will not create or affect any Federal
financial assistance to states. However,
to the extent this rule falls under the
Order, we intend this document to
provide early notification of the
Agency’s specific plans and actions for
the affected programs.
Congressional Review
This regulation is not a major rule as
defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as other U.S. Agency for International
Development documents published in
the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site:
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, [which is available free
at this site]. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 226
Foreign aid, Grant programs,
Nonprofit organizations.
For the reasons set forth above, 22
CFR part 226 is amended as follows:
■
PART 226—ADMINISTRATION OF
ASSISTANCE AWARDS TO U.S. NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 226
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2381(a) and 2401.
2. Amend § 226.2 by adding the
following definitions:
■
§ 226.2
*
PO 00000
*
Definitions
*
Frm 00041
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
50189
Activity mean a set of actions through
which inputs—such as commodities,
technical assistance, training, or
resource transfers—are mobilized to
produce specific outputs, such as
vaccinations given, schools built,
microenterprise loans issued, or policies
changed. Activities are undertaken to
achieve objectives that have been
formally approved and notified to
Congress.
*
*
*
*
*
Apparent successful applicant(s)
means the applicant(s) for USAID
funding recommended for an award
after technical evaluation, but who has
not yet been awarded a grant,
cooperative agreement or other
assistance award by the Agreement
Officer. Apparent Successful Applicants
will be requested by the Agreement
Officer to submit a Branding Strategy
and Marking Plan. Apparent Successful
Applicant status confers no right and
constitutes no USAID commitment to an
award, which still must be obligated by
the Agreement Officer.
*
*
*
*
*
Branding strategy means a strategy the
Apparent Successful Applicant submits
at the specific request of a USAID
Agreement Officer after technical
evaluation of an application for USAID
funding, describing how the program,
project, or activity is named and
positioned, as well as how it is
promoted and communicated to
beneficiaries and cooperating country
citizens. It identifies all donors and
explains how they will be
acknowledged. A Branding Strategy is
required even if a Presumptive
Exception is approved in the Marking
Plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Commodities mean any material,
article, supply, goods or equipment,
excluding recipient offices, vehicles,
and non-deliverable items for recipient’s
internal use in administration of the
USAID funded grant, cooperative
agreement, or other agreement or
subagreement.
*
*
*
*
*
Marking plan means a plan that the
Apparent Successful Applicant submits
at the specific request of a USAID
Agreement Officer after technical
evaluation of an application for USAID
funding, detailing the public
communications, commodities, and
program materials and other items that
will visibly bear the USAID Identity.
Recipients may request approval of
Presumptive Exceptions to marking
requirements in the Marking Plan.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50190
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Principal officers means the most
senior officer in a USAID Operating
Unit in the field, e.g., USAID Mission
Director or USAID Representative. For
global programs managed from
Washington but executed across many
countries such as disaster relief and
assistance to internally displaced
persons, humanitarian emergencies or
immediate post conflict and political
crisis response, the cognizant Principal
Officer may be an Office Director, for
example, the Directors of USAID/W/
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
and Office of Transition Initiatives. For
non-presence countries, the cognizant
Principal Officer is the Senior USAID
officer in a regional USAID Operating
Unit responsible for the non-presence
country, or in the absence of such a
responsible operating unit, the Principle
U.S Diplomatic Officer in the nonpresence country exercising delegated
authority from USAID.
*
*
*
*
*
Programs mean an organized set of
activities and allocation of resources
directed toward a common purpose,
objective, or goal undertaken or
proposed by an organization to carry out
the responsibilities assigned to it.
*
*
*
*
*
Projects include all the marginal costs
of inputs (including the proposed
investment) technically required to
produce a discrete marketable output or
a desired result (for example, services
from a fully functional water/sewage
treatment facility).
*
*
*
*
*
Public communications are
documents and messages intended for
distribution to audiences external to the
recipient’s organization. They include,
but are not limited to, correspondence,
publications, studies, reports, audio
visual productions, and other
informational products; applications,
forms, press and promotional materials
used in connection with USAID funded
programs, projects or activities,
including signage and plaques; Web
sites/Internet activities; and events such
as training courses, conferences,
seminars, press conferences and the
like.
*
*
*
*
*
Subrecipient means any person or
government (including cooperating
country government) department,
agency, establishment, or for profit or
nonprofit organization that receives a
USAID subaward, as defined in 22 CFR
226.2.
*
*
*
*
*
Technical Assistance means the
provision of funds, goods, services or
other foreign assistance such as loan
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
guarantees or food for work, to
developing countries and other USAID
recipients, and through such recipients
to subrecipients, in direct support of a
development objective—as opposed to
the internal management of the foreign
assistance program. This definition is
applicable only to 22 CFR 226.91.
*
*
*
*
*
USAID Identity (Identity) means the
official marking for the United States
Agency for International Development
(USAID) comprised of the USAID logo
or seal and new brandmark with the
tagline that clearly communicates our
assistance is ‘‘from the American
people.’’ The USAID Identity is
available on the USAID Web site at
https://www.usaid.gov/branding and is
provided without royalty, license or
other fee to recipients of USAID funded
grants or cooperative agreements or
other assistance awards.
*
*
*
*
*
USAID Partner Co-Branding Guide is
a USAID produced publication that is
provided free of charge to recipients of
USAID funded grants or cooperative
agreements or other assistance awards
or subawards, that details recommended
marking practices and provides
examples of USAID funded programs,
projects, activities, public
communications, and commodities
marked with the USAID Identity.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Add § 226.91 to subpart F, to read
as follows:
§ 226.91
Marking.
(a) USAID policy is that all programs,
projects, activities, public
communications, and commodities,
specified further at paragraph (b)–(e) of
this section, partially or fully funded by
a USAID grant or cooperative agreement
or other assistance award or subaward
must be marked appropriately overseas
with the USAID Identity, of a size and
prominence equivalent to or greater
than the recipient’s, other donor’s or
any other third party’s identity or logo.
(1) USAID reserves the right to require
the USAID Identity to be larger and
more prominent if it is the majority
donor, or to require that a cooperating
country government’s identity be larger
and more prominent if circumstances
warrant; any such requirement will be
on a case-by-case basis depending on
the audience, program goals and
materials produced.
(2) USAID reserves the right to request
pre-production review of USAID funded
public communications and program
materials for compliance with the
approved Marking Plan.
(3) USAID reserves the right to require
marking with the USAID Identity in the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
event the recipient does not choose to
mark with its own identity or logo.
(4) To ensure that the marking
requirements ‘‘flow down’’ to
subrecipients of subawards, recipients
of USAID funded grants and cooperative
agreements or other assistance awards
are required to include a USAIDapproved marking provision in any
USAID funded subaward, as follows:
As a condition of receipt of this subaward,
marking with the USAID Identity of a size
and prominence equivalent to or greater than
the recipient’s, subrecipient’s, other donor’s
or third party’s is required. In the event the
recipient chooses not to require marking with
its own identity or logo by the subrecipient,
USAID may, at its discretion, require marking
by the subrecipient with the USAID Identity.
(b) Subject to § 226.91 (a), (h), and (j),
program, project, or activity sites funded
by USAID, including visible
infrastructure projects (for example,
roads, bridges, buildings) or other
programs, projects, or activities that are
physical in nature (for example,
agriculture, forestry, water
management), must be marked with the
USAID Identity. Temporary signs or
plaques should be erected early in the
construction or implementation phase.
When construction or implementation is
complete, a permanent, durable sign,
plaque or other marking must be
installed.
(c) Subject to § 226.91 (a), (h), and (j),
technical assistance, studies, reports,
papers, publications, audio-visual
productions, public service
announcements, Web sites/Internet
activities and other promotional,
informational, media, or
communications products funded by
USAID must be marked with the USAID
Identity.
(1) Any ‘‘public communications’’ as
defined in § 226.2, funded by USAID, in
which the content has not been
approved by USAID, must contain the
following disclaimer:
This study/report/audio/visual/other
information/media product (specify) is made
possible by the generous support of the
American people through the United States
Agency for International Development
(USAID). The contents are the responsibility
of [insert recipient name] and do not
necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the
United States Government.
(2) The recipient shall provide the
Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) or
other USAID personnel designated in
the grant or cooperative agreement with
at least two copies of all program and
communications materials produced
under the award. In addition, the
recipient shall submit one electronic
and/or one hard copy of all final
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
documents to USAID’s Development
Experience Clearinghouse.
(d) Subject to § 226.91 (a), (h), and (j),
events financed by USAID such as
training courses, conferences, seminars,
exhibitions, fairs, workshops, press
conferences and other public activities,
must be marked appropriately with the
USAID Identity. Unless directly
prohibited and as appropriate to the
surroundings, recipients should display
additional materials such as signs and
banners with the USAID Identity. In
circumstances in which the USAID
Identity cannot be displayed visually,
recipients are encouraged otherwise to
acknowledge USAID and the American
people’s support.
(e) Subject to § 226.91 (a), (h), and (j),
all commodities financed by USAID,
including commodities or equipment
provided under humanitarian assistance
or disaster relief programs, and all other
equipment, supplies and other materials
funded by USAID, and their export
packaging, must be marked with the
USAID Identity.
(f) After technical evaluation of
applications for USAID funding, USAID
Agreement Officers will request
Apparent Successful Applicants to
submit a Branding Strategy, defined in
§ 226.2. The proposed Branding Strategy
will not be evaluated competitively. The
Agreement Officer shall review for
adequacy the proposed Branding
Strategy, and will negotiate, approve
and include the Branding Strategy in the
award. Failure to submit or negotiate a
Branding Strategy within the time
specified by the Agreement Officer will
make the Apparent Successful
Applicant ineligible for award.
(g) After technical evaluation of
applications for USAID funding, USAID
Agreement Officers will request
Apparent Successful Applicants to
submit a Marking Plan, defined in
§ 226.2. The Marking Plan may include
requests for approval of Presumptive
Exceptions, paragraph (h) of this
section. All estimated costs associated
with branding and marking USAID
programs, such as plaques, labels,
banners, press events, promotional
materials, and the like, must be
included in the total cost estimate of the
grant or cooperative agreement or other
assistance award, and are subject to
revision and negotiation with the
Agreement Officer upon submission of
the Marking Plan. The Marking Plan
will not be evaluated competitively. The
Agreement Officer shall review for
adequacy the proposed Marking Plan,
and will negotiate, approve and include
the Marking Plan in the award. Failure
to submit or negotiate a Marking Plan
within the time specified by the
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
Agreement Officer will make the
Apparent Successful Applicant
ineligible for award. Agreement Officers
have the discretion to suspend the
implementation requirements of the
Marking Plan if circumstances warrant.
Recipients of USAID funded grant or
cooperative agreement or other
assistance award or subaward should
retain copies of any specific marking
instructions or waivers in their project,
program or activity files. Cognizant
Technical Officers will be assigned
responsibility to monitor marking
requirements on the basis of the
approved Marking Plan.
(h) Presumptive exceptions: (1) The
above marking requirements in § 226.91
(a)–(e) may not apply if marking would:
(i) Compromise the intrinsic
independence or neutrality of a program
or materials where independence or
neutrality is an inherent aspect of the
program and materials, such as election
monitoring or ballots, and voter
information literature; political party
support or public policy advocacy or
reform; independent media, such as
television and radio broadcasts,
newspaper articles and editorials;
public service announcements or public
opinion polls and surveys.
(ii) Diminish the credibility of audits,
reports, analyses, studies, or policy
recommendations whose data or
findings must be seen as independent.
(iii) Undercut host-country
government ‘‘ownership’’ of
constitutions, laws, regulations,
policies, studies, assessments, reports,
publications, surveys or audits, public
service announcements, or other
communications better positioned as
‘‘by’’ or ‘‘from’’ a cooperating country
ministry or government official.
(iv) Impair the functionality of an
item, such as sterilized equipment or
spare parts.
(v) Incur substantial costs or be
impractical, such as items too small or
other otherwise unsuited for individual
marking, such as food in bulk.
(vi) Offend local cultural or social
norms, or be considered inappropriate
on such items as condoms, toilets, bed
pans, or similar commodities.
(vii) Conflict with international law.
(2) These exceptions are presumptive,
not automatic and must be approved by
the Agreement Officer. Apparent
Successful Applicants may request
approval of one or more of the
presumptive exceptions, depending on
the circumstances, in their Marking
Plan. The Agreement Officer will review
requests for presumptive exceptions for
adequacy, along with the rest of the
Marking Plan. When reviewing a request
for approval of a presumptive exception,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50191
the Agreement Officer may review how
program materials will be marked (if at
all) if the USAID identity is removed.
Exceptions approved will apply to
subrecipients unless otherwise provided
by USAID.
(i) In cases where the Marking Plan
has not been complied with, the
Agreement Officer will initiate
corrective action. Such action may
involve informing the recipient of a
USAID grant or cooperative agreement
or other assistance award or subaward
of instances of noncompliance and
requesting that the recipient carry out
it’s responsibilities as set forth in the
Marking Plan and award. Major or
repeated non-compliance with the
Marking Plan will be governed by the
uniform suspension and termination
procedures set forth at 22 CFR 226.61
and 226.62.
(j) USAID Principal Officers, defined
for purposes of this provision at § 226.2,
may at any time after award waive in
whole or in part the USAID approved
Marking Plan, including USAID
marking requirements for each USAID
funded program, project, activity, public
communication or commodity, or in
exceptional circumstances may make a
waiver by region or country, if the
Principal Officer determines that
otherwise USAID required marking
would pose compelling political, safety,
or security concerns, or marking would
have an adverse impact in the
cooperating country. USAID recipients
may request waivers of the Marking
Plan in whole or in part, through the
Cognizant Technical Officer. No
marking is required while a waiver
determination is pending. The waiver
determination on safety or security
grounds must be made in consultation
with U.S. Government security
personnel if available, and must
consider the same information that
applies to determinations of the safety
and security of U.S. Government
employees in the cooperating country,
as well as any information supplied by
the Cognizant Technical Officer or the
recipient for whom the waiver is sought.
When reviewing a request for approval
of a waiver, the Principal Officer may
review how program materials will be
marked (if at all) if the USAID Identity
is removed. Approved waivers are not
limited in duration but are subject to
Principal Officer review at any time due
to changed circumstances. Approved
waivers ‘‘flow down’’ to recipients of
subawards unless specified otherwise.
Principal Officers may also authorize
the removal of USAID markings already
affixed if circumstances warrant.
Principal Officers’ determinations
regarding waiver requests are subject to
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50192
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
appeal to the Principal Officer’s
cognizant Assistant Administrator.
Recipients may appeal by submitting a
written request to reconsider the
Principal Officer’s waiver determination
to the cognizant Assistant
Administrator.
(k) Non-retroactivity. Marking
requirements apply to any obligation of
USAID funds for new awards as of
January 2, 2006. Marking requirements
also will apply to new obligations under
existing awards, such as incremental
funding actions, as of January 2, 2006,
when the total estimated cost of the
existing award has been increased by
USAID or the scope of work is changed
to accommodate any costs associated
with marking. In the event a waiver is
rescinded, the marking requirements
shall apply from the date forward that
the waiver is rescinded. In the event of
the rescinding of a waiver after the date
of completion as defined in 22 CFR
226.2 but before closeout as defined in
22 CFR 226.2., the USAID mission or
operating unit with initial responsibility
to administer the marking requirements
shall make a cost benefit analysis as to
requiring USAID marking requirements
after the date of completion of the
affected programs, projects, activities,
public communications or commodities.
(l) The USAID Identity, USAID
Partner Co-Branding Guide, and other
guidance will be provided at no cost or
fee to recipients of USAID grants,
cooperative agreements or other
assistance awards or subawards.
Additional costs associated with
marking requirements will be met by
USAID if reasonable, allowable, and
allocable under the cost principles of
OMB Cost Circular A–122. The standard
cost reimbursement provisions of the
grant, cooperative agreement, other
assistance award or subaward should be
followed when applying for
reimbursement of additional marking
costs.
(m) This section shall become
effective on January 2, 2006.
Dated: August 17, 2005.
Frederick W. Schieck,
Deputy USAID Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–16698 Filed 8–23–05; 1:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 6116–01–P
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN–200524–FRL–7952–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Chattanooga, TN; Revised Format for
Materials Being Incorporated by
Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; Notice of
administrative change.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is revising the format of
part 52 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR part 52) for
materials submitted by Chattanooga,
Tennessee that are incorporated by
reference (IBR) into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
regulations affected by this format
change have all been previously
submitted by the local agency and
approved by EPA.
This format revision will affect the
‘‘Identification of Plan’’ sections of 40
CFR part 52, by adding a table for the
Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee
SIP. This revision will also affect the
format of the SIP materials that will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register (OFR), the
Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, and the Regional
Office.
DATES: This action is effective August
26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR
part 52 are available for inspection at
the following locations: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; the
EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Air Docket (Mail
Code 6102T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
and the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Stacy DiFrank at the above Region 4
address or at (404) 562–9042.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each state
has a SIP containing the control
measures and strategies used to attain
and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is
extensive, containing such elements as
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
air pollution control regulations,
emission inventories, monitoring
networks, attainment demonstrations,
and enforcement mechanisms.
Each state must formally adopt the
control measures and strategies in the
SIP after the public has had an
opportunity to comment on them and
then submit the SIP to EPA. Once these
control measures and strategies are
approved by EPA, after notice and
comment, they are incorporated into the
federally approved SIP and are
identified in part 52 ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.’’
The full text of the state regulation
approved by EPA is not reproduced in
its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is
‘‘incorporated by reference.’’ This
means that EPA has approved a given
state regulation with a specific effective
date. The public is referred to the
location of the full text version should
they want to know which measures are
contained in a given SIP. The
information provided allows EPA and
the public to monitor the extent to
which a state implements a SIP to attain
and maintain the NAAQS and to take
enforcement action if necessary.
The SIP is a living document which
the state can revise as necessary to
address the unique air pollution
problems in the state. Therefore, EPA
from time to time must take action on
SIP revisions containing new and/or
revised regulations as being part of the
SIP. On May 22, 1997, (62 FR 27968),
EPA revised the procedures for
incorporating by reference (IBR), into
the Code of Federal Regulations,
materials submitted by states in their
EPA-approved SIP revisions. These
changes revised the format for the
identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part
52, streamlined the mechanisms for
announcing EPA approval of revisions
to a SIP, and streamlined the
mechanisms for EPA’s updating of the
IBR information contained for each SIP
in 40 CFR part 52. Pursuant to these
revised procedures, EPA is revising the
format for identification of the
Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee
SIP, appearing in 40 CFR part 52. EPA
has previously revised the format for the
identification of the Tennessee SIP and
the Memphis-Shelby County and Knox
County portions of the SIP.
EPA has determined that today’s
action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’
exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’
authorizes agencies to dispense with
public participation, and APA section
553(d)(3) which allows an agency to
make an action effective immediately
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50183-50192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16698]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
22 CFR Part 226
[Aid Reg 226]
RIN 0412-AA55
Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations; Marking Requirements
AGENCY: Agency for International Development (USAID).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements the statutory requirement that all
USAID programs be marked appropriately overseas as ``American Aid.'' It
does so by adding a USAID regulation that requires recipients of USAID
funded grants and cooperative agreements and other assistance awards--
with certain Presumptive Exceptions and subject to a waiver if
warranted by specific conditions in the cooperating country--to mark
programs, projects, activities, public communications, and commodities
with the USAID Standard Graphic Identity (USAID Identity, defined
below.
Effective Dates: January 2, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Niemeyer (or designee), Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, USAID, Rm. 6.06.95,
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20523; telephone: (202)
712-4776 (this is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 2004, USAID published in the
Federal Register (69 FR 75885-75887) a proposed rule to implement fully
Section 641 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. The
Agency provided a forty five (45)-day public comment period on the
proposed rule, which ended on February 3, 2005. The Agency also offered
the public the opportunity to submit comments by surface mail, e-mail
or fax.
I. Background
The marking of foreign aid as assistance from the U.S. Government
was first required during the Marshall Plan when Congress became
concerned about poorly marked U.S. foreign aid donations to European
countries. USAID's framework legislation, the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, section 641, requires that all programs under the
Foreign Assistance Act, including assistance awards, be identified
appropriately overseas as ``American Aid.'' While USAID has required
its contractors to mark U.S.
[[Page 50184]]
Government-funded foreign assistance, that requirement has applied to
recipients of grants and cooperative agreements only to the limited
extent of acknowledging USAID funding in publications and media
releases. A Commission on Public Diplomacy report, ``Changing Minds,
Winning Peace: a New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in
the Arab World,'' both commends and encourages USAID to continue to
``become more forthright about branding its activities, so recipients
know that they are receiving contributions from the American people.''
Beneficiaries of U.S. aid receive billions of dollars of foreign
assistance every year in the form of grants and cooperative agreements,
often with little to no awareness that the assistance is provided by
the American people through USAID. Clear evidence of the new visibility
and value of foreign aid came in the aftermath of the recent U.S.
tsunami relief effort, the first time USAID's new ``brand identity''
was used publicly. According to a State Department study, in 2004,
favorable opinions of the U.S. were at record lows in many Muslim
countries. But, in early 2005, favorability of the U.S. nearly doubled
in Indonesia (from 37 to 66 percent) thanks to the massive delivery
of--for the first time ``well branded''--U.S. foreign assistance. A Pew
Research study confirms this: ``Positive opinions of the U.S. in
Indonesia, which had plummeted to as low as 15 percent in 2003, also
have rebounded to 38 percent. The U.S. tsunami aid effort has been
widely hailed there; 79 percent of Indonesians say they have a more
favorable view of the U.S. as a result of the relief efforts.'' A
senior U.S. diplomat summarized the impact of our campaign this way:
``The people of Ache (Indonesia) saw the branding; they knew right away
the U.S. Government was responding. That absolutely had a major impact
on their perception of the U.S. I think our new global branding is a
major foreign policy achievement.'' Such awareness of the generosity of
the American people is an important part of the U.S. Government's
public diplomacy strategy and a critical part of the post 9/11 war
against terrorism.
USAID takes the following action to ensure that the American people
are visibly acknowledged for their generosity in providing foreign
assistance. USAID has carefully considered comments to the proposed
rule, and adjusted the final rule in response,\1\ as set out more fully
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Changes to the proposed rule in the final rule demonstrate
that USAID has taken the comments into account, and all changes are
a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and comments. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1258, 1283 (1st
Cir. 1987) (Agency can make even substantial changes from proposed
version as long as changes are ``in character with'' and a ``logical
outgrowth of'' proposed rule.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. This Rule
A. Purpose of Rule
The purpose of this rule is to bring USAID regulations into full
alignment with Section 641 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, which requires that all programs under the Foreign Assistance
Act be marked appropriately overseas as ``American Aid.'' USAID also
takes this action for the policy reasons noted above.
B. USAID Regulations Amended by Rule
This rule adds a new provision, (Sec. 226.91), to 22 CFR part 226,
Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations, and amends Sec. 226.2 by adding new definitions.
The new Sec. 226.91 applies to all Federal financial assistance
awarded by USAID to U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Award
documentation for such Federal financial assistance will include
standard clauses that incorporate the requirements of Sec. 226.91, and
USAID internal directives will highlight, explain, and incorporate
Sec. 226.91 by reference.
1. Scope of the marking requirement. The rule is intended to
require marking for all implementation activities overseas under USAID
funded grants and cooperative agreements and other assistance awards to
NGOs, and to require use of a marking provision in any NGO-issued
subaward of USAID funding.
2. Threshold for marking requirements. The rule applies to all
USAID partially or fully funded grants and cooperative agreements and
other assistance awards to U.S. NGOs, and to subawards of USAID funding
issued by U.S. NGOs.
3. Extent of the marking requirements. In most cases, marking of a
size and prominence equivalent to that of the recipients and/or other
donors is required. USAID reserves the right to require marking of a
greater size or prominence on a per case basis, when it is the majority
donor of a program, project, activity, public communication, or
commodity. In the event the recipient or other donor does not chose to
mark with its own graphic identity or logo, USAID reserves the right to
require marking with the USAID Identity.
USAID has greatly reduced the paperwork required to comply with
this rule by limiting those who must submit it. The Agreement Officer
will request a ``Branding Strategy,'' defined in 22 CFR 226.2, only
from ``Apparent Successful Applicants,'' defined in 22 CFR 226.2 for
USAID funds which have been recommended for award after technical
evaluation of their applications. The Branding Strategy will describe
how the program will be named, promoted, and communicated to
beneficiaries and cooperating country citizens and how donors will be
acknowledged. The Branding Strategy will be a required submission but
will not be competitively evaluated. The Branding Strategy will be
reviewed for adequacy, negotiated, and included in the award by the
Agreement Officer. The Agreement Officer also will request Apparent
Successful Applicants to provide a ``Marking Plan,'' defined at 22 CFR
226.2., detailing the type (for example, plaque or adhesive labels) and
level of marking (for example, every computer or just one sign) for
activities, commodities, public communications and other deliverable
items that will visibly bear the USAID Identity. The Marking Plan also
will be reviewed for adequacy, negotiated, and included in the award by
the Agreement Officer. The approved Marking Plan will be used to
monitor compliance with marking requirements. Further, specific marking
instructions and examples will be provided to recipients in the USAID
Partner Co-Branding Guide. USAID will consult with interested parties
on development of the guide.
4. Exceptions. USAID has established ``Presumptive Exceptions,''
that may apply to obviate marking requirements where marking would
interfere with USAID and recipient program goals, or marking would be
inefficient or ineffective. Applicants may request the USAID Agreement
Officer to approve one or more applicable Presumptive Exceptions as
part of their Marking Plan. Any approved exceptions will apply for the
life of the award, unless provided otherwise. The ``Presumptive
Exceptions'' provision is described fully at 22 CFR Sec. 226.91 (h).
5. Waiver provisions. Because USAID intends that marking
requirements be carried out reasonably, erring on the side of safety,
USAID has provided in the rule an ``emergency'' waiver authority for
USAID Principal Officers, defined at 22 CFR 226.2, who currently
exercise similar waiver authority for marking requirements under
contracts. By virtue of being posted in the cooperating country,
Principal Officers have access to current and relevant
[[Page 50185]]
information concerning political, safety and security concerns,
including that provided by recipients, and can anticipate adverse
impact in the cooperating country. No marking is required while a
waiver request is pending determination by a USAID Principal Officer.
The waiver provision is described fully below.
In sum, Presumptive Exceptions will be approved by the Agreement
Officers, waivers by the Principal Officers. Inclusion of the
Presumptive Exceptions provision is intended to address the majority of
common cases where USAID marking requirements may not apply; the waiver
provision is intended to address cooperating country political, safety
and security concerns, emergencies, or special cases.
Please note, when marking with the USAID Identity is not required
due to an exception or waiver, USAID may review how program materials
will be marked if the USAID identity is removed.
6. Compliance. USAID will monitor and enforce the approved Marking
Plan in USAID awards, and USAID's Office of the Inspector General will
audit both USAID and recipient compliance with the approved Marking
Plan. Recipients in non-compliance with the Marking Plan are subject to
the suspension and termination provisions of 22 CFR 226.61 and 226.62.
7. Costs. Recipients are required to submit proposed costs for
branding and marking as part of their total cost estimate, which may be
revised and negotiated when Apparent Successful Applicants are required
to submit a Marking Plan. All marking costs that are reasonable,
allocable and allowable will be funded by USAID.
III. Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
On December 20, 2004, USAID published in the Federal Register
(Volume 69, Number 243, Page 75885-75887) a Proposed Rule for
Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations, Marking Requirements. By February 3, 2005, the closing
date for comments, USAID received forty-seven (47) comments, including
comments from NGOs that have received USAID funding, trade associations
that represent them, and other interested parties. All of the comments
were read, and most are discussed below and reflected in the final
rule, on the following basis: While there is no legal requirement to
respond to every comment or discuss every fact or opinion included, all
have been considered that could potentially challenge a fundamental
premise or are relevant and significant.
The following is a summary of comments by issue, and the Agency's
responses to those comments.
A. General Comments
Comment: Several comments expressed concern that USAID restricted
discussion of the proposed marking requirements by sending an Agency
notice to employees, requesting that all comments on the proposed rule
be made through the rulemaking process.
Response: USAID engaged in rulemaking to ensure that the proposed
rule would benefit from public comment; to provide transparency; and so
all interested parties would have an equal opportunity to comment, not
just those in the Washington area or with access to USAID staff. The
Agency notice was intended to ensure that comments by NGOs and other
interested parties would be taken into account during a formal process,
rather than through informal conversations with USAID employees who
could not directly affect its outcome. As part of this formal
rulemaking process, USAID is bound by the ``ex parte contact'' rule to
limit comments to the rulemaking process, to ensure the final rule was
based on comments in the public record, as well as Agency expertise.
Comment: While there was nearly uniform support for the purpose of
the proposed rule, to ensure that aid recipients overseas understand
that all USAID-funded assistance awards are from the American people,
several comments challenged the authority of the Agency to issue a rule
requiring NGOs to mark USAID funded assistance with the USAID Identity.
Response: USAID's framework legislation, the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as amended, Section 641, provides that ``[p]rograms under this
Act shall be identified appropriately overseas as `American Aid.' ''
Section 621 of that same Act provides that the head of USAID ``may from
time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary'' to carry out Agency functions under the Act, including
Section 641 marking requirements. This authority is not contradicted,
as one commenter argues, because Congress did not say explicitly how
the marking requirement was to be implemented. Under the above
authority, implementation is left to Agency discretion.
Comment: Several comments also questioned the timing and reason for
the rule, pointing out that USAID has existing, less comprehensive
marking requirements for media products and publications in its
standard provisions for grants to NGOs.
Response: In response to the 9/11 tragedy, the U.S. national
security strategy has been revised to include, for the first time,
development along with diplomacy and defense. As the lead development
assistance agency of the U.S. Government, USAID has the responsibility
to ensure that international development plays a vital role in national
security by ensuring beneficiaries are aware the aid--including the
funding of grants and cooperative agreements--is from the American
people. Recent surveys show that more comprehensive marking
requirements result in a much more favorable impression of the U.S
abroad.
Comment: Several comments also questioned the approval of the
proposed rule by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or argued
that before engaging in rulemaking, USAID had to seek a deviation from
OMB under 22 CFR part 226.4.
Response: Both the proposed rule and final rule have been reviewed
by OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Executive
Order 12866. The deviation procedure set forth at 22 CFR 226.4 is not
pertinent. As noted above, section 621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, provides USAID with statutory rulemaking authority.
USAID used this rulemaking authority to issue 22 CFR part 226,
Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations, including section 226.1, which provides that ``[e]xcept
as otherwise authorized by statute, this part establishes uniform
administrative requirements * * *' As noted in the proposed rule and
above, marking is expressly required by statute, and so comes within
the `otherwise authorized by statute' exception of Sec. 226.1. Section
226.4, ``Deviations,'' is not related to the purpose and applicability
of the regulations, but rather deviations from their general
applicability as authorized by OMB and if not prohibited by statute.
The comments calling for USAID to obtain an OMB deviation to engage in
rulemaking have the purpose of such a deviation backwards: A deviation
is not required to permit rulemaking, particularly when rulemaking is
expressly required by a statute--but to deviate from rules already
promulgated by rulemaking and included in any part 226 of 22 CFR. Any
reading of Sec. 226.4 to the contrary contradicts with its plain
language, and would frustrate its purpose by locking the current
version of 22 CFR part 226 in stone, a result contrary to USAID's
express and ongoing rulemaking authority, section
[[Page 50186]]
621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
Comment: No similar policy concerning marking is apparently being
pursued by the Department of State, which has overall responsibility
for conduct of foreign relations. Thus the marking requirement is
simply `a USAID attempt to raise its visibility.'
Response: The USAID marking initiative, including the extension of
full marking requirements to NGOs, has been coordinated with the U.S.
Department of State. Programs implemented by the State Department, such
as the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and the President's
Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) under the authority of the
Global AIDS Coordinator, have their own marking requirements. USAID is
the lead foreign assistance agency of the U.S. Government, and it is
appropriate for USAID to exercise leadership in the marking of foreign
assistance. Because USAID often plays a role in implementing programs
funded in part or in whole by sister agencies such as the Department of
State, recipients may be required to include the logo of other U.S.
Government agencies on USAID funded programs, projects, activities,
public communications, and commodities. In such circumstances, guidance
will be provided on a case by case basis.
The characterization of the initiative as simply a `USAID attempt
to raise its visibility overseas' misinterprets the intention of the
message and the design of the USAID Identity with its emphasis not on
USAID as the acronym for the Agency but `US-AID' (differentiated by
colors) as a ``brand'' of foreign assistance, like Japanese or British
aid, as well as the emphasis of the tagline ``From the American
People.''
Comment: USAID also received many comments to the effect that the
proposed rule undercuts the independence of grantees, oversteps the
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, makes grantees an arm of
the U. S. Government and, by extending marking requirements, is
treating grantees like contractors.
Response: Marking is required by the Foreign Assistance Act, as
noted above. Nothing in the marking requirement is inconsistent with
the definition of a grant--to accomplish a public purpose of support or
stimulation authorized by a federal statute--in this case the Foreign
Assistance Act. Marking does not change the funding or purpose of a
grant or cooperative agreement. All the marking requirement does is
raise the level of visibility of the American people's donation. Other
donors to NGOs require similar acknowledgement. See EU Visibility
Guidelines for External Actions, November 2002. The co-branding
requirements established by this rule are much less comprehensive than
USAID's branding requirements for contractors, which do not permit co-
branding or marking with a contractor logo, and establish rigorous
design standards similar to those used for USAID's own external
communications.
Comment: Several comments expressed concern that markings with high
visibility would block host-country national `ownership' of the program
or project, cause local citizens to view projects adversely, compromise
NGOs' apolitical position in a cooperating country or otherwise harm
the acceptance and effectiveness of programs and projects in some
situations.
Response: The Branding Strategy and Marking Plan submitted by the
Apparent Successful Applicant provides the opportunity to propose a
program or project name, outline the promotional and communication
activities, and to recommend which items are to be marked. Such
participation by recipients `up front' should ensure that their
concerns about marking requirements are addressed in program
implementation. USAID also has included a ``Presumptive Exceptions''
provision that may apply to obviate marking requirements, see section
226.91(h) below. Also, USAID has amended the `waiver provision' of the
final rule to include waivers in case of adverse reaction in the
cooperating country, see section 226.91(j), below.
USAID employees are dedicated development professionals who share
NGO partners' focus on designing and implementing successful programs.
They are responsible for reporting results and ultimately accountable
to the Executive Branch, Congress, and the American people for return
on their investment. For these reasons, USAID will ensure that use of
markings does not cause the program or project to fail.
Comment: Several comments suggested including marking requirements
in the initial Request for Proposals (RFPs) or Annual Program
Statements (APS) for implementation of a program or project. The
comments also included many suggestions for more flexibility in
application of the marking requirements.
Response: USAID has drafted the rule to minimize the burden on
applicants, and to maximize flexibility. Only those Apparent Successful
Applicants who have been recommended for award after technical
evaluation will be requested to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking
Plan by the Agreement Officer. Both the Strategy and Plan enable
implementing partners to recommend how to customize global marking
requirements to individual activities, subject to the approval of the
Agreement Officer.
Comment: The comments also expressed concern over, and requested
clarification about, the breadth--for example, `all' commodities--of
the marking requirements.
Response: The Marking Plan enables implementing partners to propose
the appropriate level of marking by detailing program commodities that
will visibly bear the USAID Identity (for example, mark all computers
but not all desks and chairs in a school room). The new `Presumptive
Exceptions' provision narrows the breadth of the marking requirement on
a case-by-case basis, as set forth in the final rule. It also includes
a de minimis' rule for items too small or otherwise impracticable to
mark.
Comment: The comments also raised calls for consultation by USAID
on the creation of the referenced `USAID Partner Co-Branding Guide.'
Response: While the specific implementation of statutory marking
requirements is well within USAID's sole discretion, USAID will
actively consult with interested parties on the USAID Partner Co-
Branding Guide.
Comment: Several comments requested clarification that the marking
requirement does not apply to recipient organization offices or
vehicles.
Response: Because the intent of the USAID marking requirements is
to mark programs and projects, not people, the final rule does not
require marking of vehicles, offices, and other administrative items
for internal use by the recipient. See Definitions, ``Commodities,''
Sec. 226.2, below.
Comment: Many of the comments raised security concerns and, while
praising the concept, additional questions about the waiver procedure.
There was also considerable confusion about application of the `no
double standard' policy and requests to delete the provision directing
Mission Directors to recommend removal of a recipient organization's
own marking when granting a waiver. Finally, there were calls for
waivers of longer than six months duration without review and for
blanket waivers under certain circumstances, such as when a recipient
was implementing a USAID funded program in a country in which U.S.
Government employees received danger pay or where there were active
U.S. Government military operations.
Response: USAID is determined to implement these marking
requirements
[[Page 50187]]
by erring on the side of safety. Recipients in good faith may request a
waiver through the Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) at any time after
award. No marking is required while a waiver determination is pending.
The waiver provision has been changed to clarify that the `no double
standard' provision requires the USAID Principal Officer making the
waiver determination to consider at a minimum, information provided by
the recipient in its request for the waiver (NGOs) and U.S Government
security information, where available. The provision concerning
Principal Officers' recommendations to recipients about removal of
their own markings has been deleted. Decisions of the Principal Officer
can be appealed to that Principal Officer's cognizant Assistant
Administrator in USAID.
Comment: Several comments expressed concern or confusion about the
provisions in the proposed rule at Sec. 226.91(j) and (k), providing
for disclaimers of a U.S. Government employment status for recipient
employees engaging in public speaking, writing or promotional efforts
concerning the USAID funded program or project, and disclaimers of U.S.
Government employment status for use of the USAID Identity on employee
business cards or other personally identifying materials.
Response: Sections 226.91(j) and (k) in the proposed rule have been
deleted from the final rule. Recipients must seek guidance from the
Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) concerning any employee use of the
USAID Identity on employee business cards or other personally
identifying materials.
Miscellaneous changes to the final rule based on general comments
or Agency review: The non-retroactivity provision has been clarified in
the final rule, and an additional presumptive exception has been added
to address International Committee of the Red Cross concerns that any
required marking not violate international neutrality standards. The
final rule also is clarified to state expressly that marking applies to
commodities provided under Title II Food Aid; the Food Aid regulations
at 22 CFR 211 will be subsequently amended to take into account this
final rule. Finally, Sec. Sec. 226.91(f) Exceptions and 226.91(g)
Waivers in the proposed rule have been re-lettered 226.91(h) Exceptions
and Sec. 226.91(j) Waivers in the final rule.
B. Comments on Specific Provisions
Comment, 226.2., Definitions: several comments called for USAID to
define further terms such as activity, equipment, programs, projects,
and supplies.
Response: USAID has amended the definitions section to include
definitions of ``Activity,'' ``Programs,'' ``Projects,'' ``Principal
Officers,'' ``Subrecipient'' and ``Technical Assistance'' from USAID's
Automated Directive System Glossary. In addition, definitions of
``Apparent Successful Applicant,'' ``Branding Strategy'' and ``Marking
Plan'' have been added. ``Equipment'' and ``Supplies'' are already
defined at 22 CFR 226.2.
Comment, 226.90, Appeals: several comments called for USAID to
explicitly provide an appeals process for a USAID Principal Officer's
determination regarding a waiver request.
Response: Agreed. Decisions of the Principal Officer can be
appealed to that Principal Officer's cognizant Assistant Administrator
in USAID.
Comment, 226.91(a), ``all programs, projects, activities, public
communications and commodities funded by USAID'': several comments were
concerned about the breadth of the marking requirement, and requested a
`de minimis' exception to marking requirements or further definition of
the terms commodities, supplies and the like.
Response: USAID provides an exclusion for vehicles, offices and
non-program deliverable, administrative items for recipient's internal
use in the definition of `commodities', see definitions, Sec. 226.2,
and also a `Presumptive Exceptions' provision for items too small or
impracticable to mark, see section Sec. 226.91 (h)(5).
Comment, Sec. 226.91(a), applicability to subawards: Several
comments asked for clarification or recommended that marking
requirements not `flow down' to subawards.
Response: A `flow down' required clause is included in the final
rule. Because subrecipients are the final implementing partner for many
USAID funded grants and cooperative agreements, the marking
requirements would have only limited effect on cooperating country
recipients unless the marking requirements flow down to subawards and
subrecipients.
Comment, Sec. 226.91(a)(1)-(3): There were many comments
questioning the application of the three-tiered `percentage of funding'
trigger for marking requirements.
Response: the three-tiered system has been deleted and replaced
with a much simpler provision requiring marking with the USAID Identity
of a size and prominence equivalent to that of the recipient or other
donors for all grants or cooperative agreements or other awards or
subawards which USAID is partially or fully funding. USAID reserves the
right to require marking of a greater size on a per case basis, when it
is the majority donor.
Comment, Sec. 226.91(c): Several comments raised concerns that
overzealous USAID marking requirements might compromise or undercut
program or project goals or conflict with local practices or laws.
Response: USAID has added a `Presumptive Exceptions' provision that
will apply, at the Agreement Officer's discretion, to obviate marking
requirements where marking would interfere with USAID and recipient
goals, or marking would be inefficient, ineffective, or in conflict
with local norms. There is also an exception if marking would be
contrary to international law. Recipients will have a chance to request
approval of these or any other applicable Presumptive Exceptions in
their Marking Plan. All applicable exceptions will be approved and
included in the Marking Plan by the USAID Agreement Officer.
Comment, Sec. 226.91(d): There were several requests to define
further `technical assistance' and state exactly what must be marked.
In addition, specific concern was expressed that the application of
marking requirements to election materials and monitoring, independent
media programs, public service announcements and other independent
radio or television broadcasts, and civil and human rights work might
undercut the goals of those programs in fostering a civil society
independent from identification with the cooperating country government
or other state actors.
Response: USAID has included a definition of ``technical
assistance'' in the final rule at Sec. 226.2. USAID has also included
a `Presumptive Exceptions' section in the final rule, see Sec. 226.91
(h), which addresses concerns about marking election or democracy
materials, independent media products, and other politically sensitive
programs, projects, or activities.
Comments, Sec. 226.91(f), waivers: There were many comments and
questions about application of the waiver provisions. While there was
widespread support of the waiver concept, comments differed on its
proposed application. USAID was advised to consider waivers of an
indeterminate duration; to vest waiver authority in, variously, the
Agreement Officer, the CTO, an official whose performance was not tied
to desired Agency outcomes in a particular country; or to create a
`marking' ombudsman. Several comments expressed concern that
[[Page 50188]]
Mission Directors or other Principle Officers have not readily
exercised other waiver authorities, or would be restrained in their
exercise of waiver authority by Ambassadors or other State Department
officials.
Response: As noted above in General Comments, changes have been
made to the waiver provision based on comments received in the
rulemaking process. Specifically, USAID accepts the comment that the
waivers be of longer than six months duration; the waiver term has been
changed to provide for a waiver of unlimited duration but one that is
subject to Principal Officer review at any time due to changed
circumstances. USAID also accepts the suggestion that an appeal process
be provided, and allows the Principal Officer's waiver decision to be
appealed to the cognizant Assistant Administrator in USAID.
Despite these changes, the waiver authority remains in the first
instance with the USAID Principal Officers at an overseas post. USAID
has confidence in its senior officials on the ground, who as a class
have been making waiver determinations on marking requirements for
contractors and waivers in other sensitive areas, for years. The
appeals process provides for reconsideration of Principal Officer
determinations.
Comment. Sec. 226.91(g), role of CTOs in monitoring: Several
comments expressed concern that the CTO was required to `police'
marking requirements.
Response: USAID intends that the marking requirements, like other
requirements of the USAID grant or cooperative agreement or other
assistance award, be monitored and, if need be, enforced. USAID has
simplified and clarified the process: the Marking Plan, once it is
approved and incorporated in the award, becomes the basis for CTO
monitoring. USAID will be amending its internal `CTO Designation
Letter' and providing specific training to CTOs to cover these new
responsibilities.
Comment, Sec. 226.91(h), materiality of marking requirement:
Several comments expressed concern or even intimidation about the
designation of the marking requirement as a `material' provision of the
grant or cooperative agreement.
Response: The term `material' has been deleted, and the enforcement
provisions are the same uniform suspension and termination provisions
that apply to all other provisions of the award, see 22 CFR 226.61 and
226.62.
Comment, Sec. 226.91(j): There were several comments that pointed
out the incorrect reference to the cost principles OMB Circular A-110
in the proposed rule.
Response: The reference has been corrected to the cost principles
of OMB Circular A-122.
Comment, Sec. 226.91(k): One comment objected to the proposed
requirement that recipients of USAID funded grants and cooperative
agreements must have an organization policy in turn requiring recipient
employees to state they are not representing USAID and their comments
do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, when speaking, writing,
teaching or engaging in promotional efforts regarding USAID funded
programs or projects.
Response: This proposed provision has been deleted from the final
rule, along with the proposed provision concerning the recipient's
employee's use of the USAID Identity on employee business cards and
other personally identifying material, Sec. 226.91 (j). As stated
above, recipients should consult with their CTOs concerning any use of
the USAID Identity by recipient's employees on personally identifying
materials such as business cards.
Findings and Certifications
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
OMB has determined that the requirements for Apparent Successful
Applicants to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan are by virtue
of inclusion in this regulation information collections affecting the
public within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
requirement to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan will not
take effect until publication of OMB approval of the collection of
information by separate notice in the Federal Register.
This notice initiates the public comment period on the collection
of information required by the requirement to submit a Branding
Strategy and Marking Plan. The proposed information collection consists
of the requirement for Apparent Successful Applicants to Submit a
Branding Strategy and Marking Plan, defined in this regulation. No
record keeping burden is known to result from the proposed collection
of information.
Estimated total annual reporting burden for the period January
2006-January 2009 that will result from the collections of information
is presented below:
Projected Annual Burden Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Estimated value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of expected 500.
respondents.
Frequency of responses....... One time.
Total number of responses 500 annually.
expected.
Average response time per 8 hours.
respondent, including
negotiation.
Total annual response time 500 * 8 hour = 4000 hours.
for the collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8. (d)(1), USAID is seeking comment on the
above requirement to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan.
Specifically, the public is invite to
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2)
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Written comments should be sent within 60 days of the date of this
notice by email to `markingnprm@usaid.gov' or by surface mail to John
Niemeyer, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
USAID, Rm. 6.06.95, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20523;
telephone: (202) 712-4776 (this is not a toll-free number).
[[Page 50189]]
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, requires
that regulations be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with
the priorities and principles set forth in the EO 12866. As discussed
above, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this rule at
USAID's request. This rulemaking implements statutory authority and
reflects USAID's response to comments received on the proposed rule
published on December 20, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR 75885-
87).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) requires the
Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of rules and
paperwork requirements on small businesses and other small entities. In
accordance with that Act, the USAID Deputy Administrator has reviewed
and approved this rule, and in so doing certifies that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any
Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Assessment of Federal Regulation and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed
policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. The Agency
has determined that these regulations will not have an impact on family
well-being as defined in the legislation.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires that Federal
agencies consult with state and local government officials in the
development of regulatory policies with federalism implications. The
Agency has determined that this rule does not have federalism
implications that require special consultations with state and local
government officials.
Intergovernmental Review
This Final Rule affects direct grant programs that are subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The
objective of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and to promote federalism by relying on processes developed
by state and local governments for coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
The Agency has concluded that this rule will not create or affect
any Federal financial assistance to states. However, to the extent this
rule falls under the Order, we intend this document to provide early
notification of the Agency's specific plans and actions for the
affected programs.
Congressional Review
This regulation is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter
8.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as other U.S. Agency for
International Development documents published in the Federal Register,
in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site:
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, [which is available
free at this site]. If you have questions about using PDF, call the
U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or
in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 226
Foreign aid, Grant programs, Nonprofit organizations.
0
For the reasons set forth above, 22 CFR part 226 is amended as follows:
PART 226--ADMINISTRATION OF ASSISTANCE AWARDS TO U.S. NON-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 226 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2381(a) and 2401.
0
2. Amend Sec. 226.2 by adding the following definitions:
Sec. 226.2 Definitions
* * * * *
Activity mean a set of actions through which inputs--such as
commodities, technical assistance, training, or resource transfers--are
mobilized to produce specific outputs, such as vaccinations given,
schools built, microenterprise loans issued, or policies changed.
Activities are undertaken to achieve objectives that have been formally
approved and notified to Congress.
* * * * *
Apparent successful applicant(s) means the applicant(s) for USAID
funding recommended for an award after technical evaluation, but who
has not yet been awarded a grant, cooperative agreement or other
assistance award by the Agreement Officer. Apparent Successful
Applicants will be requested by the Agreement Officer to submit a
Branding Strategy and Marking Plan. Apparent Successful Applicant
status confers no right and constitutes no USAID commitment to an
award, which still must be obligated by the Agreement Officer.
* * * * *
Branding strategy means a strategy the Apparent Successful
Applicant submits at the specific request of a USAID Agreement Officer
after technical evaluation of an application for USAID funding,
describing how the program, project, or activity is named and
positioned, as well as how it is promoted and communicated to
beneficiaries and cooperating country citizens. It identifies all
donors and explains how they will be acknowledged. A Branding Strategy
is required even if a Presumptive Exception is approved in the Marking
Plan.
* * * * *
Commodities mean any material, article, supply, goods or equipment,
excluding recipient offices, vehicles, and non-deliverable items for
recipient's internal use in administration of the USAID funded grant,
cooperative agreement, or other agreement or subagreement.
* * * * *
Marking plan means a plan that the Apparent Successful Applicant
submits at the specific request of a USAID Agreement Officer after
technical evaluation of an application for USAID funding, detailing the
public communications, commodities, and program materials and other
items that will visibly bear the USAID Identity. Recipients may request
approval of Presumptive Exceptions to marking requirements in the
Marking Plan.
* * * * *
[[Page 50190]]
Principal officers means the most senior officer in a USAID
Operating Unit in the field, e.g., USAID Mission Director or USAID
Representative. For global programs managed from Washington but
executed across many countries such as disaster relief and assistance
to internally displaced persons, humanitarian emergencies or immediate
post conflict and political crisis response, the cognizant Principal
Officer may be an Office Director, for example, the Directors of USAID/
W/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and Office of Transition
Initiatives. For non-presence countries, the cognizant Principal
Officer is the Senior USAID officer in a regional USAID Operating Unit
responsible for the non-presence country, or in the absence of such a
responsible operating unit, the Principle U.S Diplomatic Officer in the
non-presence country exercising delegated authority from USAID.
* * * * *
Programs mean an organized set of activities and allocation of
resources directed toward a common purpose, objective, or goal
undertaken or proposed by an organization to carry out the
responsibilities assigned to it.
* * * * *
Projects include all the marginal costs of inputs (including the
proposed investment) technically required to produce a discrete
marketable output or a desired result (for example, services from a
fully functional water/sewage treatment facility).
* * * * *
Public communications are documents and messages intended for
distribution to audiences external to the recipient's organization.
They include, but are not limited to, correspondence, publications,
studies, reports, audio visual productions, and other informational
products; applications, forms, press and promotional materials used in
connection with USAID funded programs, projects or activities,
including signage and plaques; Web sites/Internet activities; and
events such as training courses, conferences, seminars, press
conferences and the like.
* * * * *
Subrecipient means any person or government (including cooperating
country government) department, agency, establishment, or for profit or
nonprofit organization that receives a USAID subaward, as defined in 22
CFR 226.2.
* * * * *
Technical Assistance means the provision of funds, goods, services
or other foreign assistance such as loan guarantees or food for work,
to developing countries and other USAID recipients, and through such
recipients to subrecipients, in direct support of a development
objective--as opposed to the internal management of the foreign
assistance program. This definition is applicable only to 22 CFR
226.91.
* * * * *
USAID Identity (Identity) means the official marking for the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) comprised of the
USAID logo or seal and new brandmark with the tagline that clearly
communicates our assistance is ``from the American people.'' The USAID
Identity is available on the USAID Web site at https://www.usaid.gov/
branding and is provided without royalty, license or other fee to
recipients of USAID funded grants or cooperative agreements or other
assistance awards.
* * * * *
USAID Partner Co-Branding Guide is a USAID produced publication
that is provided free of charge to recipients of USAID funded grants or
cooperative agreements or other assistance awards or subawards, that
details recommended marking practices and provides examples of USAID
funded programs, projects, activities, public communications, and
commodities marked with the USAID Identity.
* * * * *
3. Add Sec. 226.91 to subpart F, to read as follows:
Sec. 226.91 Marking.
(a) USAID policy is that all programs, projects, activities, public
communications, and commodities, specified further at paragraph (b)-(e)
of this section, partially or fully funded by a USAID grant or
cooperative agreement or other assistance award or subaward must be
marked appropriately overseas with the USAID Identity, of a size and
prominence equivalent to or greater than the recipient's, other donor's
or any other third party's identity or logo.
(1) USAID reserves the right to require the USAID Identity to be
larger and more prominent if it is the majority donor, or to require
that a cooperating country government's identity be larger and more
prominent if circumstances warrant; any such requirement will be on a
case-by-case basis depending on the audience, program goals and
materials produced.
(2) USAID reserves the right to request pre-production review of
USAID funded public communications and program materials for compliance
with the approved Marking Plan.
(3) USAID reserves the right to require marking with the USAID
Identity in the event the recipient does not choose to mark with its
own identity or logo.
(4) To ensure that the marking requirements ``flow down'' to
subrecipients of subawards, recipients of USAID funded grants and
cooperative agreements or other assistance awards are required to
include a USAID-approved marking provision in any USAID funded
subaward, as follows:
As a condition of receipt of this subaward, marking with the
USAID Identity of a size and prominence equivalent to or greater
than the recipient's, subrecipient's, other donor's or third party's
is required. In the event the recipient chooses not to require
marking with its own identity or logo by the subrecipient, USAID
may, at its discretion, require marking by the subrecipient with the
USAID Identity.
(b) Subject to Sec. 226.91 (a), (h), and (j), program, project, or
activity sites funded by USAID, including visible infrastructure
projects (for example, roads, bridges, buildings) or other programs,
projects, or activities that are physical in nature (for example,
agriculture, forestry, water management), must be marked with the USAID
Identity. Temporary signs or plaques should be erected early in the
construction or implementation phase. When construction or
implementation is complete, a permanent, durable sign, plaque or other
marking must be installed.
(c) Subject to Sec. 226.91 (a), (h), and (j), technical
assistance, studies, reports, papers, publications, audio-visual
productions, public service announcements, Web sites/Internet
activities and other promotional, informational, media, or
communications products funded by USAID must be marked with the USAID
Identity.
(1) Any ``public communications'' as defined in Sec. 226.2, funded
by USAID, in which the content has not been approved by USAID, must
contain the following disclaimer:
This study/report/audio/visual/other information/media product
(specify) is made possible by the generous support of the American
people through the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of [insert
recipient name] and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or
the United States Government.
(2) The recipient shall provide the Cognizant Technical Officer
(CTO) or other USAID personnel designated in the grant or cooperative
agreement with at least two copies of all program and communications
materials produced under the award. In addition, the recipient shall
submit one electronic and/or one hard copy of all final
[[Page 50191]]
documents to USAID's Development Experience Clearinghouse.
(d) Subject to Sec. 226.91 (a), (h), and (j), events financed by
USAID such as training courses, conferences, seminars, exhibitions,
fairs, workshops, press conferences and other public activities, must
be marked appropriately with the USAID Identity. Unless directly
prohibited and as appropriate to the surroundings, recipients should
display additional materials such as signs and banners with the USAID
Identity. In circumstances in which the USAID Identity cannot be
displayed visually, recipients are encouraged otherwise to acknowledge
USAID and the American people's support.
(e) Subject to Sec. 226.91 (a), (h), and (j), all commodities
financed by USAID, including commodities or equipment provided under
humanitarian assistance or disaster relief programs, and all other
equipment, supplies and other materials funded by USAID, and their
export packaging, must be marked with the USAID Identity.
(f) After technical evaluation of applications for USAID funding,
USAID Agreement Officers will request Apparent Successful Applicants to
submit a Branding Strategy, defined in Sec. 226.2. The proposed
Branding Strategy will not be evaluated competitively. The Agreement
Officer shall review for adequacy the proposed Branding Strategy, and
will negotiate, approve and include the Branding Strategy in the award.
Failure to submit or negotiate a Branding Strategy within the time
specified by the Agreement Officer will make the Apparent Successful
Applicant ineligible for award.
(g) After technical evaluation of applications for USAID funding,
USAID Agreement Officers will request Apparent Successful Applicants to
submit a Marking Plan, defined in Sec. 226.2. The Marking Plan may
include requests for approval of Presumptive Exceptions, paragraph (h)
of this section. All estimated costs associated with branding and
marking USAID programs, such as plaques, labels, banners, press events,
promotional materials, and the like, must be included in the total cost
estimate of the grant or cooperative agreement or other assistance
award, and are subject to revision and negotiation with the Agreement
Officer upon submission of the Marking Plan. The Marking Plan will not
be evaluated competitively. The Agreement Officer shall review for
adequacy the proposed Marking Plan, and will negotiate, approve and
include the Marking Plan in the award. Failure to submit or negotiate a
Marking Plan within the time specified by the Agreement Officer will
make the Apparent Successful Applicant ineligible for award. Agreement
Officers have the discretion to suspend the implementation requirements
of the Marking Plan if circumstances warrant. Recipients of USAID
funded grant or cooperative agreement or other assistance award or
subaward should retain copies of any specific marking instructions or
waivers in their project, program or activity files. Cognizant
Technical Officers will be assigned responsibility to monitor marking
requirements on the basis of the approved Marking Plan.
(h) Presumptive exceptions: (1) The above marking requirements in
Sec. 226.91 (a)-(e) may not apply if marking would:
(i) Compromise the intrinsic independence or neutrality of a
program or materials where independence or neutrality is an inherent
aspect of the program and materials, such as election monitoring or
ballots, and voter information literature; political party support or
public policy advocacy or reform; independent media, such as television
and radio broadcasts, newspaper articles and editorials; public service
announcements or public opinion polls and surveys.
(ii) Diminish the credibility of audits, reports, analyses,
studies, or policy recommendations whose data or findings must be seen
as independent.
(iii) Undercut host-country government ``ownership'' of
constitutions, laws, regulations, policies, studies, assessments,
reports, publications, surveys or audits, public service announcements,
or other communications better positioned as ``by'' or ``from'' a
cooperating country ministry or government official.
(iv) Impair the functionality of an item, such as sterilized
equipment or spare parts.
(v) Incur substantial costs or be impractical, such as items too
small or other otherwise unsuited for individual marking, such as food
in bulk.
(vi) Offend local cultural or social norms, or be considered
inappropriate on such items as condoms, toilets, bed pans, or similar
commodities.
(vii) Conflict with international law.
(2) These exceptions are presumptive, not automatic and must be
approved by the Agreement Officer. Apparent Successful Applicants may
request approval of one or more of the presumptive exceptions,
depending on the circumstances, in their Marking Plan. The Agreement
Officer will review requests for presumptive exceptions for adequacy,
along with the rest of the Marking Plan. When reviewing a request for
approval of a presumptive exception, the Agreement Officer may review
how program materials will be marked (if at all) if the USAID identity
is removed. Exceptions approved will apply to subrecipients unless
otherwise provided by USAID.
(i) In cases where the Marking Plan has not been complied with, the
Agreement Officer will initiate corrective action. Such action may
involve informing the recipient of a USAID grant or cooperative
agreement or other assistance award or subaward of instances of
noncompliance and requesting that the recipient carry out it's
responsibilities as set forth in the Marking Plan and award. Major or
repeated non-compliance with the Marking Plan will be governed by the
uniform suspension and termination procedures set forth at 22 CFR
226.61 and 226.62.
(j) USAID Principal Officers, defined for purposes of this
provision at Sec. 226.2, may at any time after award waive in whole or
in part the USAID approved Marking Plan, including USAID marking
requirements for each USAID funded program, project, activity, public
communication or commodity, or in exceptional circumstances may make a
waiver by region or country, if the Principal Officer determines that
otherwise USAID required marking would pose compelling political,
safety, or security concerns, or marking would have an adverse impact
in the cooperating country. USAID recipients may request waivers of the
Marking Plan in whole or in part, through the Cognizant Technical
Officer. No marking is required while a waiver determination is
pending. The waiver determination on safety or security grounds must be
made in consultation with U.S. Government security personnel if
available, and must consider the same information that applies to
determinations of the safety and security of U.S. Government employees
in the cooperating country, as well as any information supplied by the
Cognizant Technical Officer or the recipient for whom the waiver is
sought. When reviewing a request for approval of a waiver, the
Principal Officer may review how program materials will be marked (if
at all) if the USAID Identity is removed. Approved waivers are not
limited in duration but are subject to Principal Officer review at any
time due to changed circumstances. Approved waivers ``flow down'' to
recipients of subawards unless specified otherwise. Principal Officers
may also authorize the removal of USAID markings already affixed if
circumstances warrant. Principal Officers' determinations regarding
waiver requests are subject to
[[Page 50192]]
appeal to the Principal Officer's cognizant Assistant Administrator.
Recipients may appeal by submitting a written request to reconsider the
Principal Officer's waiver determination to the cognizant Assistant
Administrator.
(k) Non-retroactivity. Marking requirements apply to any obligation
of USAID funds for new awards as of January 2, 2006. Marking
requirements also will apply to new obligations under existing awards,
such as incremental funding actions, as of January 2, 2006, when the
total estimated cost of the existing award has been increased by USAID
or the scope of work is changed to accommodate any costs associated
with marking. In the event a waiver is rescinded, the marking
requirements shall apply from the date forward that the waiver is
rescinded. In the event of the rescinding of a waiver after the date of
completion as defined in 22 CFR 226.2 but before closeout as defined in
22 CFR 226.2., the USAID mission or operating unit with initial
responsibility to administer the marking requirements shall make a cost
benefit analysis as to requiring USAID marking requirements after the
date of completion of the affected programs, projects, activities,
public communications or commodities.
(l) The USAID Identity, USAID Partner Co-Branding Guide, and other
guidance will be provided at no cost or fee to recipients of USAID
grants, cooperative agreements or other assistance awards or subawards.
Additional costs associated with marking requirements will be met by
USAID if reasonable, allowable, and allocable under the cost principles
of OMB Cost Circular A-122. The standard cost reimbursement provisions
of the grant, cooperative agreement, other assistance award or subaward
should be followed when applying for reimbursement of additional
marking costs.
(m) This section shall become effective on January 2, 2006.
Dated: August 17, 2005.
Frederick W. Schieck,
Deputy USAID Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-16698 Filed 8-23-05; 1:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P