Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor DRL; Proposal Submission Instructions Open Comment, 5896-5897 [E8-1750]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5896
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices
Department of State Desk Officer in the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs at the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), who may be reached on
202–395–4718. You may submit
comments by any of the following
methods:
• E-mail: kastrich@omb.eop.gov. You
must include the DS form number,
information collection title, and OMB
control number in the subject line of
your message.
• Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
• Fax: 202–395–6974
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct requests for additional
information regarding the collection
listed in this notice, including requests
for copies of the proposed information
collection and supporting documents, to
Alan J. Swygert, 2100 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., SA–29, Room 3002,
Washington, DC 20520, who may be
reached on 202–663–2647 or at
swygertaj@state.gov, or to Christine
Grauer, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
SA–29, Room 3067, Washington, DC
20520, who may be reached on 202–
663–2751 or at grauercl@state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are
soliciting public comments to permit
the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
information collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our
functions.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on
those who are to respond, including the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of technology.
Abstract of proposed collection:
Section 7209 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
(IRTPA), enacted on December 17, 2004,
requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security (DHS), in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to develop
expeditiously, and implement a plan to
require U.S. citizens and certain other
categories of individuals to present a
passport or other sufficient
documentation of identity and
citizenship when entering the U.S. This
law has had significant effect on travel
to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
Land border crossings represent the
largest number of U.S. Visitor and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:07 Jan 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(U.S. VISIT) Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) inspections. Early data
suggests that this population may have
the greatest impact on passport demand.
Given these new estimates for passport
demand, CA/PPT is working to increase
and manage its personnel and capital
resources for the next several years. In
support of these efforts, CA/PPT plans
to conduct semi-annual Land Border
Crosser Surveys. This additional
gathering of data will provide the
opportunity to refine volume and timing
estimates of demand, and will help
gauge public reaction to policy changes.
Failure to prepare for this demand could
result in delays in passport issuance and
severely affect CA/PPT’s ability to meet
the public demand for passports.
Methodology:
Passport Services will conduct semiannual National Land Border Crossers
(LBC) Surveys. This will consist of
repeat cross-sectional surveys that are
nationally representative but focus
specifically on land border crossers.
Data collection will be conducted via
RDD telephone interviews including
2,000 interviews to be completed for
likely Canadian land border crossers
and 2,000 interviews completed for
likely Mexican land border crossers.
These completed interviews will
include residents of ‘‘high density’’
areas, or those within a close proximity
to land border crossings, as well as some
‘‘low density’’ areas, captured by taking
a much smaller sample.
Dated: January 25, 2008.
Betsey Anderson,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, CA/PPT,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8–1748 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6085]
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor DRL; Proposal Submission
Instructions Open Comment
Notice: The State Department’s
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor (DRL) revised its Proposal
Submission Instructions (PSI) for grant
awards in June 2007 to provide
additional guidance to applicants and to
increase formatting uniformity so that
all received proposals are fairly
reviewed based upon common criteria
and definitions of terms.
DRL requests feedback on this revised
PSI in an effort to review the
effectiveness of these new guidelines.
Interested organizations should
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
complete the questionnaire below. All
feedback will be reviewed. DRL reserves
the right to adjust or adapt the
submission instructions accordingly.
Solicitation of feedback does not imply
endorsement of comments received.
Questionnaires must not exceed four
double-spaced pages and must be
completed in Times New Roman 12
point font. Organizations are asked to
submit only one questionnaire each.
Please submit one response to the
questionnaire per organization to DRL
no later than 5 p.m. on February 20,
2008. Questionnaires should be sent to
DRL via e-mail to
SteinhelferMD@state.gov.
We thank you for taking the time to
provide your feedback to DRL.
The PSI is located on the DRL Web
site: https://state.gov/g/drl/p/c9078.htm.
Additional Information: Proposal
Submission Instructions Questionnaire
Organization Name:
Current DRL Grantee: YES or NO
Have you ever used the PSI before:
YES or NO
For each section below, please
highlight either Strongly Agree, Agree,
Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or
Not Applicable (N/A)
General Information on Proposal
Submission Instructions (PSI):
1. The PSI provides useful guidelines
for developing the content and format of
a proposal.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
2. The PSI is easy to understand and
follow.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Information on Technical Format
Requirements:
3. The technical format requirements
provide a sufficient amount of detail on
the requested proposal and budget
components.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
4. The 6 pages allowed for the budget
narrative provides enough space to give
detailed budget information.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
5. The 5 pages allowed for
attachments are sufficient for providing
all necessary supplemental information.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Please use the space below to provide
additional comments or to clarify
responses about the Technical Format
Requirements section of the PSI.
Information on Standard Forms:
E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM
31JAN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices
6. The PSI contains adequate
instructions for completing the required
standard forms.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Please use the space below to provide
additional comments or to clarify
responses about the Standard Form
section of the PSI.
Information on Cost-Sharing:
7. The cost sharing principles
outlined in the PSI are easy to
implement.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Please use the space below to provide
additional comments or to clarify
responses about the Cost-Sharing
section of the PSI.
Information on Program Monitoring
and Evaluation:
8. The Monitoring and Evaluation
section of the PSI provides clear
guidelines for developing a welldesigned monitoring and evaluation
plan.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
9. The differences between project
outputs and outcomes are well-defined.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Please use the space below to provide
additional comments or to clarify
responses about the Monitoring and
Evaluation section of the PSI.
Information on Budget Guidelines:
10. PSI budget guidelines provide
clear instructions on how to develop
comprehensive summary and line-item
budgets.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
11. The PSI clearly delineates what
costs should be included under
Administrative versus Program costs.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
12. The budget template is a helpful
tool for creating a program budget.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
13. Descriptions of line-item
categories are useful for developing the
budget and budget narrative.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
14. My organization has a good
understanding of which costs are not
DRL priorities.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
Please use the space below to provide
additional comments or to clarify
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:07 Jan 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
responses about the Budget section of
the PSI:
Please use the space below to provide
any additional information on the PSI
content.
Dated: January 23, 2008.
Jonathan Farrar,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8–1750 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6088]
Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs (ECA) Request for Grant
Proposals: Community College
Initiative for Egypt
Announcement Type: New
Cooperative Agreement.
Funding Opportunity Number: ECA/
A/S/U–08–03.
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Number: 00.000.
Key Dates:
Application Deadline: April 7, 2008.
Executive Summary: The Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)
announces an open competition for one
or more assistance awards to administer
the Community College Initiative for
Egypt, which will support study by
Egyptian undergraduate students at
accredited U.S. community colleges.
The multi-year program will bring a
total of 1,000 students to U.S.
community colleges from Egypt. The
Initiative builds on the Community
College Initiative announced at the U.S.
University Presidents Summit on
International Education, convened by
the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of Education in January 2006.
The Initiative will provide quality
educational programs, professional
development, employment skills and a
deeper understanding of American
society to underserved, non-elite
Egyptian students, particularly women
and students in their early and midtwenties who already have some work
experience. U.S. consortia of
community colleges and other
combinations of U.S. community college
campuses meeting the provisions
described in Internal Revenue Code
section 501(c)(3) may submit proposals
to cooperate with the Bureau in the
administration and implementation of
the Fiscal Year 2008 Community
College Initiative for Egypt. U.S.
consortia and other combinations of
U.S. community colleges must identify
a lead institution to receive and
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5897
administer the award. The total amount
of funding available for all program and
administrative costs will be
approximately $15.5 million.
Applicants may apply to administer the
entire program or a portion thereof.
Proposals should indicate the number of
participants that can be accommodated
at the funding level that is proposed,
based on detailed calculations of
program and administrative costs. In
order to maximize the number of
student participants under this program,
it is the Bureau’s expectation that
significant institutional and private
sector funding and cost-sharing will be
made available by cooperating
institutions.
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Authority: Overall grantmaking
authority for this program is contained
in the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87–
256, as amended, also known as the
Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the
Act is ‘‘to enable the Government of the
United States to increase mutual
understanding between the people of
the United States and the people of
other countries* * * to strengthen the
ties which unite us with other nations
by demonstrating the educational and
cultural interests, developments, and
achievements of the people of the
United States and other nations* * *
and thus to assist in the development of
friendly, sympathetic and peaceful
relations between the United States and
the other countries of the world.’’ The
funding authority for the program is
provided through legislation.
Purpose: The Community College
Initiative for Egypt will demonstrate the
U.S. commitment to providing access to
educational opportunities for a broad
range of Egyptian undergraduate
students. Through community college
exchange initiatives, the Bureau hopes
to engage the community college sector
in the United States to increase the
number of international students at U.S.
community colleges and to reinforce
community college efforts to build
international ties. U.S. community
colleges can make a unique contribution
to international educational exchange
by demonstrating the flexibility and
relevance of American higher education
and the manner in which community
colleges provide quality technical and
first-level professional education to vital
sectors of society that are essential for
nations to move forward economically
and politically. They can also provide a
model of lower-cost community-based
higher education that offers wide access
to skills development for existing jobs.
E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM
31JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5896-5897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6085]
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor DRL; Proposal
Submission Instructions Open Comment
Notice: The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor (DRL) revised its Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for
grant awards in June 2007 to provide additional guidance to applicants
and to increase formatting uniformity so that all received proposals
are fairly reviewed based upon common criteria and definitions of
terms.
DRL requests feedback on this revised PSI in an effort to review
the effectiveness of these new guidelines. Interested organizations
should complete the questionnaire below. All feedback will be reviewed.
DRL reserves the right to adjust or adapt the submission instructions
accordingly. Solicitation of feedback does not imply endorsement of
comments received.
Questionnaires must not exceed four double-spaced pages and must be
completed in Times New Roman 12 point font. Organizations are asked to
submit only one questionnaire each.
Please submit one response to the questionnaire per organization to
DRL no later than 5 p.m. on February 20, 2008. Questionnaires should be
sent to DRL via e-mail to SteinhelferMD@state.gov.
We thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback to DRL.
The PSI is located on the DRL Web site: https://state.gov/g/drl/p/
c9078.htm.
Additional Information: Proposal Submission Instructions Questionnaire
Organization Name:
Current DRL Grantee: YES or NO
Have you ever used the PSI before: YES or NO
For each section below, please highlight either Strongly Agree,
Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Applicable (N/A)
General Information on Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI):
1. The PSI provides useful guidelines for developing the content
and format of a proposal.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
2. The PSI is easy to understand and follow.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Information on Technical Format Requirements:
3. The technical format requirements provide a sufficient amount of
detail on the requested proposal and budget components.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
4. The 6 pages allowed for the budget narrative provides enough
space to give detailed budget information.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
5. The 5 pages allowed for attachments are sufficient for providing
all necessary supplemental information.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to
clarify responses about the Technical Format Requirements section of
the PSI.
Information on Standard Forms:
[[Page 5897]]
6. The PSI contains adequate instructions for completing the
required standard forms.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to
clarify responses about the Standard Form section of the PSI.
Information on Cost-Sharing:
7. The cost sharing principles outlined in the PSI are easy to
implement.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to
clarify responses about the Cost-Sharing section of the PSI.
Information on Program Monitoring and Evaluation:
8. The Monitoring and Evaluation section of the PSI provides clear
guidelines for developing a well-designed monitoring and evaluation
plan.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
9. The differences between project outputs and outcomes are well-
defined.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to
clarify responses about the Monitoring and Evaluation section of the
PSI.
Information on Budget Guidelines:
10. PSI budget guidelines provide clear instructions on how to
develop comprehensive summary and line-item budgets.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
11. The PSI clearly delineates what costs should be included under
Administrative versus Program costs.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
12. The budget template is a helpful tool for creating a program
budget.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
13. Descriptions of line-item categories are useful for developing
the budget and budget narrative.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
14. My organization has a good understanding of which costs are not
DRL priorities.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to
clarify responses about the Budget section of the PSI:
Please use the space below to provide any additional information on
the PSI content.
Dated: January 23, 2008.
Jonathan Farrar,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8-1750 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-18-P
