80 FR 81868 - Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2016
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 251 (December 31, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 251 (December 31, 2015)
| Page Range | 81868-81870 | |
| FR Document | 2015-32353 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 81868-81870] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-32353] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION [MCC FR 15-06] Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2016 AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-199, Division D, (the ``Act''), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1). Dated: December 18, 2015. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation. Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2016 Summary This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, Public Law 108-199, Division D, (the ``Act'') (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)). The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account [[Page 81869]] (``MCA'') assistance under section 605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) to countries that enter into compacts with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction, and are in furtherance of the Act. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation (``MCC'') to determine the countries that will be eligible to receive MCA assistance for the fiscal year, based on their demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, as well as on the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. The Act also requires the submission of reports to appropriate congressional committees and the publication of notices in the Federal Register that identify, among other things: 1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for assistance for fiscal year (``FY'') 2016 based on their per-capita income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law, and countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(a))); 2. The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC (the ``Board'') will use to measure and evaluate the policy performance of the ``candidate countries'' consistent with the requirements of section 607 of the Act in order to select ``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 with which of the eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into compacts (section 608(d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(d))). This is the third of the above-described reports by MCC for FY 2016. It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2016 and countries with which the MCC will seek to enter into compacts under section 609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708), as well as the justification for such decisions. The report also identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible for MCC's Threshold Program under section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7715). Eligible Countries The Board met on December 16, 2015, to select countries that will be eligible for assistance under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2016. The Board selected the following countries as eligible for such assistance for FY 2016: Cote d'Ivoire, Kosovo, and Senegal. The Board also reselected the following countries as eligible for FY 2016 compact assistance: Niger, Nepal, and the Philippines. The Board did not vote on the re-selection of Tanzania and Lesotho. The Board also reaffirmed its support for Mongolia's continued effort to develop its compact proposal that will access funds appropriated to MCC when Mongolia was a candidate country. Criteria In accordance with the Act and with the ``Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016'' formally submitted to Congress on September 22, 2015, selection was based primarily on a country's overall performance in three broad policy categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and Investing in People. The Board relied, to the maximum extent possible, upon transparent and independent indicators to assess countries' policy performance and demonstrated commitment in these three broad policy areas. The Board compared countries' performance on the indicators relative to their income-level peers, evaluating them in comparison to either the group of low income countries (``LIC'') or the group of lower middle income countries (``LMIC''). The criteria and methodology used to assess countries on the annual scorecards are outlined in the ``Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2016.'' \1\ Scorecards reflecting each country's performance on the indicators are available on MCC's Web site at www.mcc.gov/scorecards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/report-selection-criteria-and-methodology-fy16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Board also considered whether any adjustments should be made for data gaps, data lags, or recent events since the indicators were published, as well as strengths or weaknesses in particular indicators. Where appropriate, the Board took into account additional quantitative and qualitative information, such as evidence of a country's commitment to fighting corruption, investments in human development outcomes, or poverty rates. For example, for additional information in the area of corruption, the Board considered how a country is evaluated by supplemental sources like Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity Report, Open Government Partnership status, and the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, among others, as well as on the defined indicator. The Board may also take into account the margin of error around an indicator, when applicable. In keeping with legislative directives, the Board also considered the opportunity to reduce poverty and promote economic growth in a country, in light of the overall information available, as well as the availability of appropriated funds. This was the sixth year the Board considered the eligibility of countries for subsequent compacts, as permitted under section 609(k) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708(k)). The Board also considered the eligibility of countries for initial compacts. The Board sees the selection decision as an annual opportunity to determine where MCC funds can be most effectively invested to support poverty reduction through economic growth in relatively well-governed, poor countries. The Board carefully considers the appropriate nature of each country partnership--on a case by case basis--based on factors related to economic growth and poverty reduction, the sustainability of MCC's investments, and the country's ability to attract and leverage public and private resources in support of development. MCC's engagement with partner countries is not open-ended, and the Board is very deliberate when determining eligibility for follow-on partnerships. In determining subsequent compact eligibility, the Board considered--in addition to the criteria outlined above--the country's performance implementing its first compact, including the nature of the country's partnership with MCC, the degree to which the country has demonstrated a commitment and capacity to achieve program results, and the degree to which the country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards. To the greatest extent possible, this was assessed using pre-existing monitoring and evaluation targets and regular quarterly reporting. This information was supplemented with direct surveys and consultation with MCC staff responsible for compact implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. MCC published a Guide to [[Page 81870]] the Supplemental Information Sheet \2\ and a Guide to the Compact Survey Summary \3\ in order to increase transparency about the type of supplemental information the Board uses to assess a country's policy performance and compact implementation performance. The Board also considered a country's commitment to further sector reform, as well as evidence of improved scorecard policy performance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/guide-to-supplemental-information-fy16. \3\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/guide-to-the-compact-survey-summary-fy15. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As with previous years, a number of countries that performed well on the quantitative elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on the policy indicators) were not chosen as eligible countries for FY 2016. FY 2016 was a particularly competitive year: Several countries were already working to develop compacts, multiple countries passed the scorecard (some for the first time), and funding was limited due to budget constraints. As a result, only three countries that passed the scorecard were newly selected for MCC compact eligibility, and two others for the threshold program. Countries Newly Selected for Compact Eligibility Using the criteria described above, Cote d'Ivoire, Kosovo, and Senegal are the only candidate countries under section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)) that were newly selected as eligible for assistance under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706). Cote d'Ivoire: After years of working with MCC and MCC indicator institutions in order to strengthen their scorecard performance, Cote D'Ivoire went from passing 5 to 13 indicators over the last four years, due to updating data and pursuing policy reforms linked to the scorecard. In FY 2015, Cote D'Ivoire met the minimum scorecard criteria for the first time, passing 10 indicators, including both hard hurdles. Given the continued improvement from FY 2015 to FY 2016, selection for a compact program allows MCC to continue strengthen its relationship with Cote d'Ivoire while rewarding continued policy improvement. Kosovo: After years of working to improve data collection and quality, as well as improve policy outcomes, Kosovo passed the MCC scorecard for the first time in FY16, passing 13 of 20 indicators including both hard hurdles and passing Control of Corruption. The country remains one of the poorest in Europe with close to 30% of the population living on less than $2/day, and an economy highly dependent on remittances. A compact investment will serve as an opportunity to reduce poverty through sustainable economic development while also building on the positive relationship built over the past few years. Senegal: Senegal has consistently passed the scorecard criteria for eight consecutive years and scored above the 90th percentile in Control of Corruption for three consecutive years. Through its first compact, Senegal has proven to be a strong partner, successfully completing the compact ($540 million) in September 2015. In working on a second compact, MCC is able to continue to partner with the Government of Senegal to reduce poverty and support strong economic investments in the country. Countries Reselected To Continue Compact Development Three of the countries selected as eligible for compact assistance for FY 2016 were previously selected as eligible in FY 2015. These countries are Niger, Nepal and the Philippines. The Board reselected these countries based on their continued or improved policy performance since their prior selection. The Board also expressed its support for continued development of a compact with Mongolia using funds appropriated in FY 2015 and prior years, as the country moved in FY 2016 to the upper middle income category before its proposal was finalized. The Board deferred a vote on the selection of Tanzania and Lesotho and emphasized the seriousness with which it takes a country's commitment to MCC's eligibility criteria. Tanzania: The Board deferred a vote on Tanzania's reselection. The Board discussed the fact that due to ongoing concerns about the Zanzibar elections, as well as the use of Tanzania's Cyber Crimes legislation in the context of the national elections, a vote on reselection would be premature at this time. The Board may revisit its decision over the course of 2016 as more information becomes available. Lesotho: The Board deferred a vote on Lesotho's reselection. The Board discussed the fact that due to ongoing concerns over the rule of law and accountability in the country, and an expected report from the Southern Africa Development Community on these same issues, a vote on reselection would be premature at this time. The Board may revisit its decision over the course of 2016 as more information becomes available. Countries Selected as Eligible To Receive Threshold Program Assistance The Board selected Sri Lanka and Togo as eligible to receive threshold program assistance. Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka consistently passed the scorecard from FY 2011 through FY 2015. Though Sri Lanka failed the scorecard in FY 2016 due to failing the democratic rights indicators, this was largely due to the indicators reflecting events in 2014, and likely not yet capturing the democratic rights improvements following the 2015 elections. A threshold program investment is an opportunity to build on this positive momentum, and allows Sri Lanka the opportunity to further strengthen its scorecard performance. It also allows MCC the opportunity to work with the government on the country's ongoing efforts in policy reform. Togo: Togo has shown consistent improvements on the MCC scorecard over the past three years. A government committee has been strongly engaged with MCC to strategize and prioritize policy improvements, including reforming the family code to ensure gender equality and improving control of corruption. As a result, Togo moved from passing 5 of 20 indicators in FY 2014 to 10 of 20 indicators in FY 2016. Togo's eligibility for threshold program assistance will allow MCC to engage with Togo on continued policy reform, as well as offer Togo an opportunity to further strengthen its scorecard performance. Ongoing Review of Partner Countries' Policy Performance Once MCC has signed a compact with a country, MCC does not consider the country for reselection on an annual basis during the term of its compact. However, the Board emphasized the need for all partner countries to maintain or improve their policy performance. If it is determined during compact implementation that a country has demonstrated a significant policy reversal, MCC can hold it accountable by applying MCC's Suspension and Termination Policy.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/policy-on-suspension-and-termination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2015-32353 Filed 12-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![81868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
numbered subject for which a response 15. Please describe, and assess the Remedies
is submitted. effectiveness or ineffectiveness of, 26. Is section 512(g)(2)(C), which
voluntary measures and best practices— requires a copyright owner to bring a
General Effectiveness of Safe Harbors
including financial measures, content federal lawsuit within ten business days
1. Are the section 512 safe harbors ‘‘filtering’’ and takedown procedures— to keep allegedly infringing content
working as Congress intended? that have been undertaken by interested
2. Have courts properly construed the offline—and a counter-notifying party to
parties to supplement or improve the defend any such lawsuit—a reasonable
entities and activities covered by the efficacy of section 512’s notice-and-
section 512 safe harbors? and effective provision? If not, how
takedown process. might it be improved?
3. How have section 512’s limitations
on liability for online service providers Counter Notifications 27. Is the limited injunctive relief
impacted the growth and development available under section 512(j) a
16. How effective is the counter- sufficient and effective remedy to
of online services? notification process for addressing false
4. How have section 512’s limitations address the posting of infringing
and mistaken assertions of material?
on liability for online service providers infringement?
impacted the protection and value of 28. Are the remedies for
17. How efficient or burdensome is misrepresentation set forth in section
copyrighted works, including licensing the counter-notification process for
markets for such works? 512(f) sufficient to deter and address
users and service providers? Is it a fraudulent or abusive notices and
5. Do the section 512 safe harbors workable solution over the long run?
strike the correct balance between counter notifications?
18. In what ways does the process
copyright owners and online service work differently for individuals, small- Other Issues
providers? scale entities, and/or large-scale entities 29. Please provide any statistical or
Notice-and-Takedown Process that are sending and/or receiving economic reports or studies that
6. How effective is section 512’s counter notifications? demonstrate the effectiveness,
notice-and-takedown process for ineffectiveness, and/or impact of section
Legal Standards
addressing online infringement? 512’s safe harbors.
7. How efficient or burdensome is 19. Assess courts’ interpretations of 30. Please identify and describe any
section 512’s notice-and-takedown the ‘‘actual’’ and ‘‘red flag’’ knowledge pertinent issues not referenced above
process for addressing online standards under the section 512 safe that the Copyright Office should
infringement? Is it a workable solution harbors, including the role of ‘‘willful consider in conducting its study.
over the long run? blindness’’ and section 512(m)(1) Dated: December 28, 2015.
8. In what ways does the process work (limiting the duty of a service provider Maria A. Pallante,
differently for individuals, small-scale to monitor for infringing activity) in
Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office.
entities, and/or large-scale entities that such analyses. How are judicial
[FR Doc. 2015–32973 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
are sending and/or receiving takedown interpretations impacting the
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
notices? effectiveness of section 512?
9. Please address the role of both 20. Assess courts’ interpretations of
‘‘human’’ and automated notice-and- the ‘‘financial benefit’’ and ‘‘right and
takedown processes under section 512, ability to control’’ standards under the MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
including their respective feasibility, section 512 safe harbors. How are CORPORATION
benefits, and limitations. judicial interpretations impacting the [MCC FR 15–06]
10. Does the notice-and-takedown effectiveness of section 512?
process sufficiently address the 21. Describe any other judicial Report on the Selection of Eligible
reappearance of infringing material interpretations of section 512 that Countries for Fiscal Year 2016
previously removed by a service impact its effectiveness, and why.
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge
provider in response to a notice? If not, Repeat Infringers Corporation.
what should be done to address this
22. Describe and address the ACTION: Notice.
concern?
11. Are there technologies or effectiveness of repeat infringer policies SUMMARY: This report is provided in
processes that would improve the as referenced in section 512(i)(A). accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
efficiency and/or effectiveness of the 23. Is there sufficient clarity in the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub.
notice-and-takedown process? law as to what constitutes a repeat L. 108–199, Division D, (the ‘‘Act’’), 22
12. Does the notice-and-takedown infringer policy for purposes of section U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
process sufficiently protect against 512’s safe harbors? If not, what should
fraudulent, abusive or unfounded be done to address this concern? Dated: December 18, 2015.
notices? If not, what should be done to Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong,
Standard Technical Measures Vice President and General Counsel,
address this concern?
13. Has section 512(d), which 24. Does section 512(i) concerning Millennium Challenge Corporation.
addresses ‘‘information location tools,’’ service providers’ accommodation of Report on the Selection of Eligible
been a useful mechanism to address ‘‘standard technical measures’’ Countries for Fiscal Year 2016
infringement that occurs as a result of a (including the definition of such
service provider’s referring or linking to measures set forth in section 512(i)(2)) Summary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
infringing content? If not, what should encourage or discourage the use of This report is provided in accordance
be done to address this concern? technologies to address online with section 608(d)(1) of the
14. Have courts properly interpreted infringement? Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as
the meaning of ‘‘representative list’’ 25. Are there any existing or emerging amended, Public Law 108–199, Division
under section 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)? If not, ‘‘standard technical measures’’ that D, (the ‘‘Act’’) (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)).
what should be done to address this could or should apply to obtain the The Act authorizes the provision of
concern? benefits of section 512’s safe harbors? Millennium Challenge Account
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Dec 30, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_82119/page/1.svg)
![81870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 251 / Thursday, December 31, 2015 / Notices
the Supplemental Information Sheet 2 population living on less than $2/day, Countries Selected as Eligible To
and a Guide to the Compact Survey and an economy highly dependent on Receive Threshold Program Assistance
Summary 3 in order to increase remittances. A compact investment will
transparency about the type of serve as an opportunity to reduce The Board selected Sri Lanka and
supplemental information the Board poverty through sustainable economic Togo as eligible to receive threshold
uses to assess a country’s policy development while also building on the program assistance.
performance and compact positive relationship built over the past Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka consistently
implementation performance. The few years. passed the scorecard from FY 2011
Board also considered a country’s Senegal: Senegal has consistently through FY 2015. Though Sri Lanka
commitment to further sector reform, as passed the scorecard criteria for eight failed the scorecard in FY 2016 due to
well as evidence of improved scorecard consecutive years and scored above the failing the democratic rights indicators,
policy performance. 90th percentile in Control of Corruption this was largely due to the indicators
As with previous years, a number of for three consecutive years. Through its reflecting events in 2014, and likely not
countries that performed well on the first compact, Senegal has proven to be yet capturing the democratic rights
quantitative elements of the selection a strong partner, successfully improvements following the 2015
criteria (i.e., on the policy indicators) completing the compact ($540 million)
were not chosen as eligible countries for elections. A threshold program
in September 2015. In working on a
FY 2016. FY 2016 was a particularly investment is an opportunity to build on
second compact, MCC is able to
competitive year: Several countries were this positive momentum, and allows Sri
continue to partner with the
already working to develop compacts, Government of Senegal to reduce Lanka the opportunity to further
multiple countries passed the scorecard poverty and support strong economic strengthen its scorecard performance. It
(some for the first time), and funding investments in the country. also allows MCC the opportunity to
was limited due to budget constraints. work with the government on the
As a result, only three countries that Countries Reselected To Continue country’s ongoing efforts in policy
passed the scorecard were newly Compact Development reform.
selected for MCC compact eligibility, Three of the countries selected as Togo: Togo has shown consistent
and two others for the threshold eligible for compact assistance for FY improvements on the MCC scorecard
program. 2016 were previously selected as over the past three years. A government
Countries Newly Selected for Compact eligible in FY 2015. These countries are committee has been strongly engaged
Eligibility Niger, Nepal and the Philippines. The with MCC to strategize and prioritize
Board reselected these countries based policy improvements, including
Using the criteria described above, on their continued or improved policy
Cote d’Ivoire, Kosovo, and Senegal are reforming the family code to ensure
performance since their prior selection. gender equality and improving control
the only candidate countries under The Board also expressed its support for
section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. of corruption. As a result, Togo moved
continued development of a compact
7705(a)) that were newly selected as from passing 5 of 20 indicators in FY
with Mongolia using funds appropriated
eligible for assistance under section 607 2014 to 10 of 20 indicators in FY 2016.
in FY 2015 and prior years, as the
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706). Togo’s eligibility for threshold program
country moved in FY 2016 to the upper
Cote d’Ivoire: After years of working middle income category before its assistance will allow MCC to engage
with MCC and MCC indicator proposal was finalized. The Board with Togo on continued policy reform,
institutions in order to strengthen their deferred a vote on the selection of as well as offer Togo an opportunity to
scorecard performance, Cote D’Ivoire Tanzania and Lesotho and emphasized further strengthen its scorecard
went from passing 5 to 13 indicators the seriousness with which it takes a performance.
over the last four years, due to updating country’s commitment to MCC’s
data and pursuing policy reforms linked Ongoing Review of Partner Countries’
eligibility criteria. Policy Performance
to the scorecard. In FY 2015, Cote Tanzania: The Board deferred a vote
D’Ivoire met the minimum scorecard on Tanzania’s reselection. The Board Once MCC has signed a compact with
criteria for the first time, passing 10 discussed the fact that due to ongoing a country, MCC does not consider the
indicators, including both hard hurdles. concerns about the Zanzibar elections, country for reselection on an annual
Given the continued improvement from as well as the use of Tanzania’s Cyber basis during the term of its compact.
FY 2015 to FY 2016, selection for a Crimes legislation in the context of the However, the Board emphasized the
compact program allows MCC to national elections, a vote on reselection
continue strengthen its relationship need for all partner countries to
would be premature at this time. The maintain or improve their policy
with Cote d’Ivoire while rewarding Board may revisit its decision over the
continued policy improvement. performance. If it is determined during
course of 2016 as more information compact implementation that a country
Kosovo: After years of working to becomes available.
improve data collection and quality, as has demonstrated a significant policy
Lesotho: The Board deferred a vote on reversal, MCC can hold it accountable
well as improve policy outcomes, Lesotho’s reselection. The Board
Kosovo passed the MCC scorecard for by applying MCC’s Suspension and
discussed the fact that due to ongoing Termination Policy.4
the first time in FY16, passing 13 of 20 concerns over the rule of law and
indicators including both hard hurdles [FR Doc. 2015–32353 Filed 12–30–15; 8:45 am]
accountability in the country, and an
and passing Control of Corruption. The BILLING CODE P
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
expected report from the Southern
country remains one of the poorest in Africa Development Community on
Europe with close to 30% of the these same issues, a vote on reselection
2 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/
would be premature at this time. The
doc/guide-to-supplemental-information-fy16. Board may revisit its decision over the
3 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/ course of 2016 as more information 4 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/
doc/guide-to-the-compact-survey-summary-fy15. becomes available. doc/policy-on-suspension-and-termination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Dec 30, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_82119/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-31 02:15:19
Document Modified: 2015-12-31 02:15:19
| 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 81868 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR