80 FR 58307 - Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 187 (September 28, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 187 (September 28, 2015)
| Page Range | 58307-58314 | |
| FR Document | 2015-24490 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 187 (Monday, September 28, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 58307-58314] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-24490] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION [MCC FR 15-03] Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016 AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This report to Congress is provided in accordance with Section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the ``Act''). Dated: September 22, 2015. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge Corporation. Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016 Summary In accordance with section 608(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the ``Act'', 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(1)), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is submitting the following report. This report identifies the criteria and methodology that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) intends to use to determine which candidate countries may be eligible to be considered for assistance under the Act for FY 2016. Under section 608 (c)(1) of the Act, MCC will, for a thirty-day period following publication, accept and consider public comment for purposes of determining eligible countries under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706). [[Page 58308]] Criteria and Methodology for FY 2016 This document explains how the Board of Directors (Board) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will identify, evaluate, and determine eligibility of countries for Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) assistance for fiscal year (FY) 2016. The statutory basis for this report is set forth in Appendix A. Specifically, this document discusses: I. Which Countries MCC Will Evaluate II. How the Board Evaluates These Countries A. Overall B. For Selection for First Compact Eligibility C. For Selection for Second/Subsequent Compact Eligibility D. For Selection for the Threshold Program E. A Note on Potential Regional Investments I. Which countries are evaluated? As discussed in the August 2015 Report on Countries that are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2016 and Countries that Would be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions (the ``Candidate Country Report''), MCC evaluates all low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs) countries as follows:For scorecard evaluation purposes for FY 2016, MCC defines LICs as those countries between $0 and $1985 GNI per capita, and LMICs as those countries between $1986 and $4125 GNI per capita.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This corresponds to LIC and LMIC definitions using the historic International Development Association (IDA) thresholds published by the World Bank. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For funding purposes for FY 2016, MCC defines the poorest 75 countries as LICs, and the remaining countries up to the upper- middle income (UMIC) threshold of $4125 as LMICs.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact funds for a given fiscal year may be provided to LMIC countries (using this ``funding'' definition). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under Appendix B, lists of all LICS, LMICS and statutorily prohibited countries for evaluation purposes are provided. The list using the ``funding'' definition was outlined in the FY 2016 Candidate Country Report and describes how funding categories work. II. How does the Board evaluate these countries? A. Overall Evaluation The Board looks at three legislatively-mandated factors in its evaluation of any candidate country for compact eligibility: (1) Policy performance; (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth; and (3) the availability of MCC funds. 1. Policy Performance Because of the importance of needing to evaluate a country's policy performance--and needing to do so in a comparable, cross-country way-- the Board relies to the maximum extent possible upon the best-available objective and quantifiable indicators of policy performance. These indicators act as proxies of the country's commitment to good governance, as laid out in MCC's founding legislation. Comprised of 20 third-party indicators in the categories of ``encouraging economic freedom,'' ``investing in people,'' and ``ruling justly,'' MCC ``scorecards'' are created for all LICs and LMICs. To ``pass'' the indicators on the scorecard, the country must perform above the median among its income group (as defined above), except in the cases of inflation, political rights, civil liberties, and immunization rates (LMICs only), where threshold scores have been established. In particular, the Board considers whether the country: Passed at least 10 of the 20 indicators, with at least one in each category, Passed the ``Control of Corruption'' indicator, and Passed either the ``Political Rights'' or ``Civil Liberties'' indicator. While satisfaction of all three aspects means a country is termed to have ``passed'' the scorecard, the Board also considers whether the country performed ``substantially worse'' in any one policy category than it does on the scorecard overall. Appendix C describes all 20 indicators, their definitions, what is required to ``pass,'' their source, and their relationship to the legislative criteria. The 20 policy performance indicators are the predominant basis for determining which countries will be eligible for MCC assistance, and the Board expects a country to be passing its scorecard at the point the Board decides to select the country for either a first or second/ subsequent compact. However, the Board also recognizes that even the best-available data has inherent challenges. For example, data gaps, real-time events versus data lags, the absence of narratives and nuanced detail, and other similar weaknesses affect each of these indicators. In such instances, the Board uses its judgment to interpret policy performance as measured by the scorecards. The Board may also consult other sources of information to further enhance its understanding of a given country's policy performance beyond the issues on the scorecard, which is especially useful given the unique perspective of each Board member (e.g., specific policy issues related to trade, civil society, other U.S. aid programs, financial sector performance, and security/foreign policy issues). The Board uses its judgment on how best to weigh such information in assessing overall policy performance. 2. The Opportunity To Reduce Poverty and Generate Economic Growth The Board also consults other sources of qualitative and quantitative information to have a more detailed view of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a country. While the Board considers a range of other information sources depending on the country, specific areas of attention typically include better understanding the issues on, trends in, and trajectory of: The control of corruption and rule of law; The state of democratic and human rights (especially of vulnerable groups \3\); --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ For example, women; children; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals; people with disabilities; and workers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The perspective of civil society on salient governance issues; The potential for the private sector (both local and foreign) to lead investment and growth; The levels of poverty within a country; and The country's institutional capacity. Where applicable, the Board also considers MCC's own experience and ability to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a given country--such as considering MCC's core skills versus the country's needs, capacity within MCC to work with a country, and the likelihood that MCC is seen by the country as a credible partner. This information provides greater clarity on the likelihood that MCC investments will have an appreciable impact on reducing poverty and generating economic growth in a given country. The Board has used such information both to not select countries that are otherwise passing their scorecards, as well as to better understand when a country's performance on a particular indicator may not be up to date or is about to change. More details on this subject (sometimes referred to as ``supplemental information'') can be found on MCC's Web site at https://www.mcc.gov/pages/docs/doc/pub-guide-to-supplemental-information-fy15. 3. The Availability of MCC Funds The final factor that the Board must consider when evaluating countries is [[Page 58309]] the funding available. The agency's allocation of its budget is constrained, and often specifically limited, by provisions in the authorizing legislation and appropriations acts. MCC has a continuous pipeline of countries in compact development, compact implementation, and compact closeout, as well as threshold programs. Consequently, the Board factors in the overall portfolio picture when making its selection decisions given the funding available for each of the agency's planned or existing programs. The following sub-sections describe how each of these three legislatively-mandated factors are applied with regard to the selection situations the Board encounters each December: Selection of countries for first compact eligibility, selection of countries for second/ subsequent compact eligibility, and selection of countries for the threshold program. Thereafter, a note is included on consideration of countries for potential regional investments. B. Evaluation for Selection of Countries for First Compact Eligibility When selecting countries for compact eligibility, the Board looks at all three legislatively-mandated aspects described in the previous section: (1) Policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the scorecards and bolstered through additional information (as described in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting information (as described in the previous section); and (3) the funding available. At a minimum, the Board looks to see that the country passes its scorecard. It also examines supporting evidence that the country's commitment to good governance is on a sound footing and performance is on a positive trajectory, and that MCC has funding to support a meaningful compact with that country. Where applicable, previous threshold program information is also considered. The Board then weighs the information described above across each of the three dimensions. The approach described above is then applied in any additional years of selection of a country to continue to develop a first compact, with the added benefit of having cumulative scorecards, cumulative records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the emerging multi-year trajectory. C. Evaluation for Selection of Countries for Second/Subsequent Compact Eligibility Section 609(k) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, specifically authorizes MCC to enter into ``one or more subsequent Compacts.'' MCC does not consider subsequent compact eligibility, however, before countries have completed their compact, or are within 18 months of completion, (e.g., a second compact if they have completed or are within 18 months of completing their first compact). Selection for subsequent compacts is not automatic and is intended only for countries that (1) exhibit successful performance on their previous compact; (2) exhibit improved scorecard policy performance during the partnership; and (3) exhibit a continued commitment to further their sector reform efforts in any subsequent partnership. As a result, the Board has an even higher standard when selecting countries for subsequent compacts. 1. Successful Implementation of the Previous Compact To evaluate the degree of success of the previous compact, the Board looks to see if there is a clear evidence base of success within the budget and time limits of the compact, in particular by looking at three aspects: The degree to which there is evidence of strong political will and management capacity: Is the partnership characterized by the country ensuring that both policy reforms and the compact program itself are being implemented to the best ability that the country can deliver; The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment and capacity to achieve program results: Are the financial and project results being achieved; to what degree is the country committing its own resources to ensure the compact is a success; to what extent is the private sector engaged (if relevant); and other compact-specific issues; and The degree to which the country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards: That is, is the country adhering to MCC's policies and procedures, including in critical areas such as remediating unresolved fraud and corruption and abuse or misuse of funds issues; procurement; and monitoring and evaluation. Details on the specific types of information examined (and sources used) in each of the three areas are provided in Appendix D. Overall, the Board is looking for evidence that the previous compact will be completed or has been completed successfully, on time and on budget, and that there is a commitment to continued, robust reform going forward. 2. Improved Scorecard Policy Performance Beyond successful implementation of the previous compact, the Board expects the country to have improved its overall scorecard policy performance during the partnership, and to pass the scorecard in the year of selection for the subsequent compact. The Board focuses on: The overall scorecard pass/fail rate over time, what this suggests about underlying policy performance, as well as an examination of the underlying reasons; The progress over time on policy areas measured by both hard-hurdle indicators--Control of Corruption, and Democratic Rights-- including an examination of the underlying reasons; and Other indicator trajectories as deemed relevant by the Board. In all cases, while the Board expects the country to be passing its scorecard, other sources of information are examined to understand the nuance and reasons behind scorecard or indicator performance over time, including any real-time updates, methodological changes within the indicators themselves, shifts in the relevant candidate pool, or alternative policy performance perspectives (such as gleaned through consultations with civil society and related stakeholders). Other sources of information are also consulted to look at policy performance over time in areas not covered by the scorecard, but that are deemed important by the Board (such as trade, foreign policy concerns, etc.). 3. A Commitment to Further Sector Reform The Board expects that subsequent compacts will endeavor to tackle deeper policy reforms necessary to unlock an identified constraint to growth. Consequently, the Board considers its own experience during the previous compact in considering how committed the country is to reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, and therefore tries to gauge the country's commitment for further sector reform should it be selected for a subsequent compact. This includes: Assessing the country's delivery of policy reform during the previous compact (as described above); Assessing expectations of the country's ability and willingness to [[Page 58310]] continue embarking on sector policy reform in a subsequent compact; Examining both other sources of information that describe the nature of the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate growth (as outlined in A.2 above), and the relative success of the previous compact overall, as already discussed; and Finally, considering how well funding can be leveraged for impact, given its experience in the previous compact. Through this overall approach to subsequent compact selection, the Board applies the three legislatively mandated evaluation criteria (policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and the funding available) in a way that rests critically on deeply assessing the previous partnership: From a compact success standpoint, a commitment to improved scorecard policy performance standpoint, and a commitment to continued sector policy reform standpoint. The Board then weighs all of the information described above in making its decision. The approach described above is then applied in any additional years of selection necessary as the country continues to develop the subsequent compact, with the added benefit of having even further detail on previous compact implementation, cumulative scorecards, records of policy performance, and other accumulated supporting information to determine the overall pattern of performance over the resulting multi-year trajectory. D. Evaluation for Eligibility for Threshold Programs The Board may also select countries to participate in the Threshold Program. The Threshold Program provides assistance to candidate countries that exhibit a significant commitment to meeting the eligibility criteria described in the previous sub-sections, but fail to meet such requirements. Specifically, in examining the policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and the funding available, the Board will consider whether a country potentially eligible for threshold program assistance appears to be on a trajectory to becoming a viable contender for compact eligibility in the medium term. E. A Note on Potential Regional Investments FY 2016 marks the first year that the Board may consider selecting countries where potential regional investments (i.e., cross-border investments) may be developed. With respect to regional investments, the fundamental criteria and process for selection will remain unchanged: Countries will continue to be evaluated and selected individually, as described in sections A, B, and C above. However, for countries where regional investments might be contemplated, the Board will also examine additional supplemental information looking at the policy environment from a regional dimension. Specifically, the Board will examine additional data and information related to: The current state of the country's political and economic integration with its region and neighbors; Impediments to further integration with its region and neighbors; and The potential gains from investing at a regional level, including illustrative potential sector opportunities. The Board will weigh this additional regional information in tandem with the other supplemental factors described earlier in sections A, B, and C. The Board will then decide whether or not it will direct MCC to explore some form of a regional investment with the country. Appendix A: Statutory Basis for This Report This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the Act). Section 605 of the Act authorizes the provision of assistance to countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries for compact assistance for FY 2016 based on the countries' demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and the availability of funds. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and publication of information in the Federal Register that identify: 1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA assistance for FY 2016 based on per capita income levels and eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law. (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a)); 2. The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate policy performance of the candidate countries consistent with the requirements of section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine ``eligible countries'' from among the ``candidate countries'' (section 608(b) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)); and 3. The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``eligible countries'' for FY 2016, with justification for eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation, including those eligible countries with which MCC will seek to enter into compacts (section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)). This report reflects the satisfaction of item #2 above. Appendix B: Lists of all LICs, LMICs, and Statutorily Prohibited Countries for Evaluation Purposes Income Classification for Scorecards Since MCC was created, it has relied on the World Bank's gross national income (GNI) per capita income data (Atlas method) and the historical ceiling for eligibility as set by the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA) to divide countries into two income categories for purposes of creating scorecards: LICs and LMICs. These categories are used to account for the income bias that occurs when countries with more per capita resources perform better than countries with fewer. Using the historical IDA eligibility ceiling for the scorecards ensures that the poorest countries compete with their income level peers and are not compared against countries with more resources to mobilize. MCC will continue to use the traditional income categories for eligibility to categorize countries in two groups for purposes of FY 2016 scorecard comparisons: LICs are countries with GNI per capita below IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility ($1,985 for FY 2016); and LMICs are countries with GNI per capita above IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold ($1,986--$4,125 for FY 2016). The list of countries categorized as LICs and LMICs for the purpose of FY 2016 scorecard assessments can be found below.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ In December 2011, a statutory change requested by MCC altered the way MCC must group countries for the purposes of applying MCC's 25 percent LMIC funding cap. This change, designed to bring stability to the funding stream, affects how MCC funds countries selected for compacts and does not affect the way scorecards are created. For determining whether a country can be funded as an LMIC or LIC: The poorest 75 countries are now considered LICs for the purposes of MCC funding. They are not limited by the 25 percent funding cap on LMICs. Countries with a GNI per capita above the poorest 75 but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold ($4,125 for FY 2015) are considered LMICs for the purposes of MCC funding. By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact funds for a given fiscal year can be provided to these countries. The FY 2016 Candidate Country Report lists LICs and LMICs based on this new definition and outlines which countries are subject to the 25 percent funding cap. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 58311]] Low Income Countries (FY 2016 Scorecard) 1. Afghanistan 2. Bangladesh 3. Benin 4. Burkina Faso 5. Burma 6. Burundi 7. Cambodia 8. Cameroon 9. Central African Republic 10. Chad 11. Comoros 12. Congo, the Democratic Republic of 13. Cote d'Ivoire 14. Djibouti 15. Eritrea 16. Ethiopia 17. Gambia 18. Ghana 19. Guinea 20. Guinea-Bissau 21. Haiti 22. India 23. Kenya 24. Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 25. Kyrgyz Republic 26. Laos 27. Lesotho 28. Liberia 29. Madagascar 30. Malawi 31. Mali 32. Mauritania 33. Mozambique 34. Nepal 35. Nicaragua 36. Niger 37. Pakistan 38. Rwanda 39. Sao Tome and Principe 40. Senegal 41. Sierra Leone 42. Solomon Islands 43. Somalia 44. South Sudan 45. Sudan 46. Tajikistan 47. Tanzania 48. Togo 49. Uganda 50. Vietnam 51. Yemen 52. Zambia 53. Zimbabwe Lower Middle Income Countries (FY 2016 Scorecard) 1. Armenia 2. Bhutan 3. Bolivia 4. Cabo Verde 5. Congo, Republic of 6. Egypt 7. El Salvador 8. Georgia 9. Guatemala 10. Guyana 11. Honduras 12. Indonesia 13. Kiribati 14. Kosovo 15. Micronesia 16. Moldova 17. Morocco 18. Nigeria 19. Papua New Guinea 20. Philippines 21. Samoa 22. Sri Lanka 23. Swaziland 24. Syria 25. Timor-Leste 26. Ukraine 27. Uzbekistan 28. Vanuatu Statutorily Prohibited Countries for FY16 \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ This list is current as of July 21, 2015. Between such date and the December 2015 selection Board meeting, other countries may also be the subject of future statutory restrictions or determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law for FY 2016. Even though these countries are prohibited from receiving assistance, scorecards are still created for them to ensure all countries are included in an income group in order to determine the global medians/scores for that income group. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Bolivia 2. Burma 3. Eritrea 4. North Korea 5. South Sudan 6. Sudan 7. Syria 8. Zimbabwe Appendix C: Indicator Definitions The following indicators will be used to measure candidate countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section 607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of poverty and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCA funds. The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather, they are proxy measures of policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable economic growth. The indicators were selected based on (i) their relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction; (ii) the number of countries they cover; (iii) transparency and availability; and (iv) relative soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are developed by independent sources.\6\ Listed below is a brief summary of the indicators (a detailed rationale for the adoption of these indicators can be found in the Public Guide to the Indicators on MCC's public Web site at www.mcc.gov). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Special note on Kosovo: Since UN agencies do not currently publish data for Kosovo due to non-recognition status, MCC is unable to source data directly from the UN for the six indicators that are constructed in all or in part from this data: Land Rights and Access, Health Expenditures, Primary Education Expenditures, Immunization Rates, Girls' Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and Child Health. As result, MCC publishes data from UNKT (the UN Kosovo Team) in cases where UNKT uses comparable methodologies to their UN sister organizations. See http://www.unkt.org/ for more information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruling Justly 1. Political Rights: Independent experts rate countries on the prevalence of free and fair elections of officials with real power; the ability of citizens to form political parties that may compete fairly in elections; freedom from domination by the military, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies and economic oligarchies; and the political rights of minority groups, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the minimum score of 17 out of 40. Source: Freedom House 2. Civil Liberties: Independent experts rate countries on freedom of expression; association and organizational rights; rule of law and human rights; and personal autonomy and economic rights, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the minimum score of 25 out of 60. Source: Freedom House 3. Freedom of Information: Measures the legal and practical steps taken by a government to enable or allow information to move freely through society; this includes measures of press freedom, national freedom of information laws, and the extent to which a county is filtering internet content or tools. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Freedom House/Centre for Law and Democracy/Access Info Europe 4. Government Effectiveness: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on the quality of public service provision; civil servants' competency and independence from political pressures; and the government's ability to plan and implement sound policies, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the [[Page 58312]] median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings) 5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on the extent to which the public has confidence in and abides by the rules of society; the incidence and impact of violent and nonviolent crime; the effectiveness, independence, and predictability of the judiciary; the protection of property rights; and the enforceability of contracts, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings) 6. Control of Corruption: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on: ``grand corruption'' in the political arena; the frequency of petty corruption; the effects of corruption on the business environment; and the tendency of elites to engage in ``state capture,'' among other things. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings) Encouraging Economic Freedom 1. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget balance divided by gross domestic product (GDP), averaged over a three-year period. The data for this measure comes primarily from IMF country reports or, where public IMF data are outdated or unavailable, are provided directly by the recipient government with input from U.S. missions in host countries. All data are cross-checked with the IMF's World Economic Outlook database to try to ensure consistency across countries and made publicly available. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Monetary Fund Country Reports, National Governments, and the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database 2. Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer prices. Pass: Score must be 15 percent or less. Source: The International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database 3. Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on the burden of regulations on business; price controls; the government's role in the economy; and foreign investment regulation, among other areas. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings) 4. Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to international trade based on weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers to trade. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The Heritage Foundation 5. Gender in the Economy: An index that measures the extent to which laws provide men and women equal capacity to generate income or participate in the economy, including the capacity to access institutions, get a job, register a business, sign a contract, open a bank account, choose where to live, and to travel freely. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Finance Corporation 6. Land Rights and Access: An index that rates countries on the extent to which the institutional, legal, and market framework provide secure land tenure and equitable access to land in rural areas and the time and cost of property registration in urban and peri-urban areas. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the International Finance Corporation 7. Access to Credit: An index that rates countries on rules and practices affecting the coverage, scope, and accessibility of credit information available through either a public credit registry or a private credit bureau; as well as legal rights in collateral laws and bankruptcy laws. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Finance Corporation 8. Business Start-Up: An index that rates countries on the time and cost of complying with all procedures officially required for an entrepreneur to start up and formally operate an industrial or commercial business. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: International Finance Corporation Investing in People 1. Public Expenditure on Health: Total expenditures on health by government at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The World Health Organization 2. Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education: Total expenditures on primary education by government at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and National Governments 3. Natural Resource Protection: Assesses whether countries are protecting up to 17 percent of all their biomes (e.g., deserts, tropical rainforests, grasslands, savannas and tundra). Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The Center for International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy 4. Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles immunization coverage rates for the most recent year available. Pass: Score must be above the median score for LICs, and 90 percent or higher for LMICs. Source: The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund 5. Girls Education: a. Girls' Primary Completion Rate: The number of female students enrolled in the last grade of primary education minus repeaters divided by the population in the relevant age cohort (gross intake ratio in the last grade of primary). LICs are assessed on this indicator. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization b. Girls Secondary Enrollment Education: The number of female pupils enrolled in lower secondary school, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population of females in the theoretical age group for lower secondary education. LMICs will be assessed on this indicator instead of Girls Primary Completion Rates. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 6. Child Health: An index made up of three indicators: (i) Access to improved water, (ii) access to improved sanitation, and (iii) child (ages 1-4) mortality. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income group. Source: The Center for International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy Relationship to Legislative Criteria Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific selection criteria. A set of objective and quantifiable policy indicators is used to inform eligibility decisions for MCA assistance and to measure the relative performance by candidate countries against these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility ensures that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by at least one of the objective indicators. Most are addressed by multiple indicators. The specific indicators appear in parentheses next to the corresponding criterion set out in the Act. [[Page 58313]] Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic governance, including a demonstrated commitment to-- (A) promote political pluralism, equality and the rule of law (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and Gender in the Economy); (B) respect human and civil rights, including the rights of people with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Freedom of Information); (C) protect private property rights (Civil Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights and Access); (D) encourage transparency and accountability of government (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Freedom of Information, Control of Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness); and (E) combat corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, Freedom of Information, and Control of Corruption); Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, including a demonstrated commitment to economic policies that-- (A) encourage citizens and firms to participate in global trade and international capital markets (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, and Regulatory Quality); (B) promote private sector growth (Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal Policy, Land Rights and Access, Access to Credit, Gender in the Economy, and Regulatory Quality); (C) strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights and Access, Access to Credit, and Regulatory Quality); and (D respect worker rights, including the right to form labor unions (Civil Liberties and Gender in the Economy); and Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the people of such country, particularly women and children, including programs that-- (A) promote broad-based primary education (Girls' Primary Completion Rate, Girls' Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education); (B) strengthen and build capacity to provide quality public health and reduce child mortality (Immunization Rates, Public Expenditure on Health, and Child Health); and (C) promote the protection of biodiversity and the transparent and sustainable management and use of natural resources (Natural Resource Protection). Appendix D: Subsequent Compact Considerations MCC reporting and data in the following chart are used to assess compact performance of MCC partners nearing the end of compact implementation (i.e., within 18-months of compact end date). Some reporting used for assessment may contain sensitive information and adversely affect implementation or MCC-partner country relations. This information is for MCC's internal use and is not made public. However, key implementation information is summarized in compact status and results reports that are published quarterly on MCC's Web site under MCC country programs (www.mcc.gov/pages/countries) or monitoring and evaluation (http://www.mcc.gov/pages/results/m-and-e) Web pages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic MCC Reporting/data source Published documents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNRY PARTNERSHIP Quarterly implementation Quarterly results published Political Will reporting as ``Table of Key Performance Status of major conditions Quarterly results reporting Indicators'' (available by precedent Survey of MCC staff country): http://go.usa.gov/jMcC. Program oversight/ Survey questions to be implementation posted: http://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX. [cir] project restructures [cir] partner response to MCA capacity issues Political independence of MCA Management Capacity .................................... .................................... Project management capacity .................................... .................................... Project performance .................................... .................................... Level of MCC intervention/ .................................... .................................... oversight Relative level of resources .................................... .................................... required PROGRAM RESULTS Indicator tracking tables Monitoring and Evaluation Financial Results Quarterly financial Plans (available by country): http:/ Commitments--including reporting /go.usa.gov/jMcC. contributions to compact funding Quarterly implementation Quarterly Status Reports Disbursements reporting (available by country): http://1.usa.gov/NfEbcI. Project Results Quarterly results reporting Quarterly results published Output, outcome, objective Survey of MCC staff as ``Table of Key Performance targets Impact evaluations Indicators'' (available by MCA commitment to `focus on country): http://1.usa.gov/QoduNl. results' Survey questions to be MCA cooperation on impact posted: http://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX. evaluation Percent complete for .................................... .................................... process/outputs Relevant outcome data .................................... .................................... Details behind target .................................... .................................... delays Target Achievements .................................... .................................... ADHERENCE TO STANDARDS Audits (GAO and OIG) Published OIG and GAO Procurement Quarterly implementation Audits Environmental and social reporting Survey questions to be Fraud and corruption Survey of MCC staff posted: http://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX. Program closure Monitoring and evaluation .................................... .................................... All other legal provisions .................................... .................................... COUNTRY SPECIFIC Quarterly implementation Quarterly results published Sustainability reporting as ``Table of Key Performance Implementation entity Quarterly results reporting Indicators'' (available by MCC investments Survey of MCC staff country): http://1.usa.gov/QoduNl. Survey questions to be posted: http://1.usa.gov/PE0xCX. Role of private sector or other .................................... .................................... donors [[Page 58314]] Other relevant investors/ .................................... .................................... investments Other donors/programming .................................... .................................... Status of related reforms .................................... .................................... Trajectory of private .................................... .................................... sector involvement going forward ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2015-24490 Filed 9-25-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices 58307
licenses that incorporate or otherwise appears twice in subparagraph (C),93 This commentary in the consent decree
reflect WSA agreement terms, it is also makes clear that the ban applies only to case further supports the Register’s
the case that they are entitled to weigh a WSA agreement’s specific terms, as determination that evidence concerning
the value of any such evidence in light embodied in particular provisions. the general impact and influence of the
of the overall circumstances of the A recent case from federal district WSA agreements—and the statutory
marketplace, including any general court in the Southern District of New licensing regime that gave rise to them—
impact of the WSA agreements. York speaks to this issue.94 As part of may appropriately be considered by the
a rate determination for the performance CRJs in evaluating the probative value of
As discussed above, in rate
of musical compositions by Pandora in the direct agreements.
determinations, the CRJs are tasked with
a ratesetting proceeding conducted
replicating a ‘‘hypothetical market’’ September 18, 2015
under a federal consent decree, the
where ‘‘the webcasting statutory license court discussed section 114(i) of the Maria A. Pallante
[does] not exist.’’ 86 Among the tools at Copyright Act, which contains the same Register of Copyrights and Director, United
the CRJs’ disposal to accomplish this ‘‘taken into account’’ language as States Copyright Office.
task are ‘‘the rates and terms for section 114(f)(5)(C).95 Section 114(i) [FR Doc. 2015–24591 Filed 9–25–15; 8:45 am]
comparable types of digital audio provides relevant part: BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
transmission services and comparable License fees payable for the public
circumstances under voluntary license performance of sound recordings under
agreements.’’ 87 As Webcasters seem to section 106(6) shall not be taken into
acknowledge, when considering a account in any administrative, judicial, MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
voluntary agreement, the CRJs may or other governmental proceeding to set CORPORATION
consider whether an agreement was or adjust the royalties payable to
made in the ‘‘shadow’’ of a statutory rate copyright owners of musical works for [MCC FR 15–03]
or WSA agreement in evaluating its the public performance of their works.96
worth as a benchmark.88 As the U.S. Report on the Criteria and
During the course of the federal court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has proceeding, the licensing organization, Methodology for Determining the
stressed, ‘‘[i]t is generally within the ASCAP, the licensor, proposed a variety Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
discretion of the Judges to assess of benchmarks for the court to consider, Millennium Challenge Account
evidence of an agreement’s including a series of licensing Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016
comparability and to decide whether to agreements negotiated directly between
look to its rates and terms for AGENCY: Millennium Challenge
copyright owners and licensees outside Corporation.
guidance.’’ 89 This ‘‘broad discretion’’ of the consent decree process.97 At trial,
includes the ability to ‘‘discount . . . ACTION: Notice.
the parties disputed the extent to which
benchmarks’’ offered by the parties.90
the court could consider evidence
Although section 114(f)(5)(C) may SUMMARY: This report to Congress is
relating to the rate for the public
preclude the consideration or provided in accordance with Section
performance of sound recordings (as
comparison of individual rates and 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act
opposed to musical works).98 While the
terms contained in the WSA of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)
presiding judge noted that she could
agreements, it does not prevent the CRJs (the ‘‘Act’’).
‘‘not take the [sound recording rate] into
from considering the agreements at all. Dated: September 22, 2015.
account in determining the fair market
Section 114(f)(5)(C) bars the CRJs from rate for a public performance license Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong,
considering the terms of agreements [for musical compositions],’’ she went VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary,
negotiated under the 2009 WSA. on to state that ‘‘one observation may be Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Nowhere does the statute suggest that safely made’’: 99 Report on the Criteria and Methodology
the mere existence of such agreements, I don’t understand that that testimony for Determining the Eligibility of
or their general effect on the about motive in negotiations and Candidate Countries for Millennium
marketplace or particular negotiations, turmoil within ASCAP over these Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal
may not be considered. As noted above, different rates [for sound recordings] Year 2016
the statutory language is specific in would be inadmissible pursuant to
limiting the scope of the prohibition to Section 114. Indeed, I think it would be Summary
the ‘‘provisions of any [WSA] difficult to deal with the facts on the In accordance with section 608(b)(2)
agreement.’’ 91 Section 114(f)(5)(C) ground as they exist and to set a rate of the Millennium Challenge Act of
provides examples of the types of that is reasonable in the context of the 2003 (the ‘‘Act’’, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(1)),
provisions Congress had in mind: ‘‘rate facts . . . without knowing about the Millennium Challenge Corporation
structure, fees, terms, conditions, or that.100 (MCC) is submitting the following
notice and recordkeeping report. This report identifies the criteria
requirements.’’ 92 This list, which 93 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(C). and methodology that the Millennium
94 See In re Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d Challenge Corporation (MCC) intends to
86 Intercollegiate Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Copyright 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). use to determine which candidate
Royalty Bd., 796 F.3d 111, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2015) 95 See id. at 366–67.
(internal alterations omitted). 96 17 U.S.C. 114(i).
countries may be eligible to be
87 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2)(B). 97 In re Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d at 320. considered for assistance under the Act
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
88 See Pandora Responsive Br. at 10–11; 98 Transcript of Trial at 729:18–733:1, In re for FY 2016.
iHeartMedia Responsive Br. at 12. Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 317 (S.D.N.Y. Under section 608 (c)(1) of the Act,
89 Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright Royalty
2014) (Nos. 12 Civ. 8035, 41 Civ. 1395). MCC will, for a thirty-day period
Bd., 574 F.3d 748, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 99 In re Pandora Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d at
90 Music Choice v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 774 following publication, accept and
366–67.
F.3d 1000, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 100 Transcript of Trial at 731:1–7, In re Pandora consider public comment for purposes
91 See 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(C) (emphasis added).
Media, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Nos. of determining eligible countries under
92 See id. 12 Civ. 8035, 41 Civ. 1395). section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Sep 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM 28SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58494/page/1.svg)
![58314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 187 / Monday, September 28, 2015 / Notices
Topic MCC Reporting/data source Published documents
• Other relevant investors/investments
• Other donors/programming
• Status of related reforms
• Trajectory of private sector involvement
going forward
[FR Doc. 2015–24490 Filed 9–25–15; 8:45 am] Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314– supervisory authority (SSA) certain
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, Email: financial and other information
OCIOPRA@ncua.gov. prescribed by the rule. 12 CFR 712.3(d).
OMB Reviewer: Office of Management The report (CUSO Registry) must
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION and Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for contain basic registration information,
ADMINISTRATION the National Credit Union including the CUSO’s name and
Administration, Office of Information address, point of contact, services
Agency Information Collection and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, offered, the names and charter numbers
Activities: Submission to OMB for DC 20503. of credit unions investing in, lending to,
Revision of a Currently Approved FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or receiving services from the CUSO,
Information Collection, Credit Union Requests for additional information, a and investor and subsidiary
Service Organizations; Comment copy of the information collection information. In addition, for any CUSO
Request request, or a copy of submitted engaged in complex or high-risk
comments should be directed to: activities, as defined in the rule, the
AGENCY: National Credit Union report must contain additional,
Administration (NCUA). NCUA Contact: Joy Lee, National Credit
Union Administration, 1775 Duke enhanced, more detailed information,
ACTION: Request for comment. including audited financial statements
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–
SUMMARY: The NCUA intends to submit 3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, Email: and more specific customer information.
the following information collection to OCIOPRA@ncua.gov. 12 CFR 712.3(d)(4). NCUA plans to
the Office of Management and Budget SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
implement secure online technology for
(OMB) for review and clearance under the CUSOs’ direct submission of
I. Abstract and Request for Comments financial and other reports.
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). NCUA is revising the currently Development of the CUSO Registry is
This information collection is published approved collection of information, underway, which will provide fully
to obtain comments from the public. OMB Control Number, 3133–0149, to electronic reporting by CUSOs.
NCUA previously amended its credit reflect amendments to 12 CFR part 712. A FICU and a CUSO must be operated
union service organization (CUSO) Part 712 implements authority in the in a manner that demonstrates to the
regulation to increase transparency and Federal Credit Union Act 1 relating to public the separate corporate existence
address certain safety and soundness FICU lending or investment activity of the FICU and the CUSO. Section
concerns. The final rule extends certain with a CUSO. The rule addresses 712.4(b) requires that prior to investing
requirements of the CUSO regulation to NCUA’s safety and soundness concerns in a CUSO, the FICU must obtain a
federally insured, state-chartered credit for activities conducted by CUSOs and written legal opinion confirming the
unions and imposes new requirements imposes certain recordkeeping CUSO is established in a legally
on federally insured credit unions obligations on FICUs that have sufficient way to limit the FICU’s
(FICUs). Under the amended rule, FICUs investment or lending relationships exposure to loss of its loans or
with an investment in, or loan to, a with, or conduct operations through, investments in the CUSO. 12 CFR
CUSO must obtain a written agreement CUSOs. Certain reporting obligations are 712.4(b).
imposed on natural person credit union The amendments also require that a
with the CUSO addressing accounting,
CUSOs and corporate CUSOs as a result FICU that is, or as a result of
financial statements, audits, reporting,
of the rule. recapitalizing an insolvent CUSO, will
and legal opinions. The rule limits the
Specifically, under the amended rule, become less than adequately capitalized
ability of a ‘‘less than adequately
FICUs with an investment in, or loan to, must, under certain circumstances,
capitalized’’ FICU to recapitalize an
a CUSO must obtain a written obtain NCUA (or SSA, if applicable)
insolvent CUSO. All CUSOs are
agreement with the CUSO (or revise any approval to recapitalize a CUSO that has
required to annually provide basic
current agreement the FICU has with a become insolvent. 12 CFR 712.2(d).
profile information to NCUA and the NCUA previously requested
appropriate state supervisory authority CUSO) to provide that the CUSO will:
(1) Account for all its transactions in comments in response to a notice on
(SSA). CUSOs engaging in certain ‘‘Information Collection Activities:
complex or high-risk activities are also accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP); (2) Submission to OMB for Revision of a
required to report more detailed Currently Approved Information
information, including audited financial prepare quarterly financial statements
and obtain an annual financial Collection, Credit Union Service
statements and customer information. Organizations’’ due September 4, 2015.
statement audit of its financial
DATES: Comments will be accepted until (80 FR 38475, July 6, 2015). NCUA
statements by a licensed certified public
October 28, 2015.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
accountant; (3) provide complete access received a few comments in response to
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are to the books and records of the CUSO; this sixty-day notice. Staff carefully
invited to submit written comments to and (4) annually report directly to reviewed and considered these
the NCUA Contact and the OMB NCUA and the appropriate state comments.
Reviewer listed below: In particular, with regard to concern
NCUA Contact: Joy Lee, National Credit 1 12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), 1757(7)(I), 1766, about confidentiality, the rule addresses
Union Administration, 1775 Duke 1782, 1785, and 1786. documents, such as an agreement
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Sep 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM 28SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58494/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-26 10:21:36
Document Modified: 2018-02-26 10:21:36
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 58307 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR