81 FR 93965 - Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2017

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 246 (December 22, 2016)

Page Range		93965-93967
FR Document		2016-30805

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93965-93967]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30805]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 16-08]

Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year
2017

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 16, 2016.
Sarah E. Fandell,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.

Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2017

Summary

This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, Pub. L. 108-199, Division
D, (the ``Act'') (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)).
The Act authorizes the provision of 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 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'') 2017 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 2017, 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
2017. It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible
under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2017 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 selected by the Board to receive
assistance under MCC's threshold program pursuant to section 616 of the
Act (22 U.S.C. 7715).

Eligible Countries

The Board met on December 13, 2016 to select those eligible
countries with which the United States, through MCC, will seek to enter
into a Millennium Challenge Compact pursuant to section 607 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2017. The Board selected the following eligible
countries for such assistance for FY 2017: Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka, and
Tunisia. The Board also reselected the following countries for compact
assistance for FY 2017: Cote d'Ivoire, Mongolia, Nepal, and Senegal.

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 2017''
formally submitted to Congress on September 20, 2016, 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 2017.'' \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-fy17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 also took 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 eighth 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)). As in previous years, they considered the
higher bar expected of subsequent compact countries, including
examining the implementation of the first compact, and evidence of both
improved scorecard policy performance and a commitment to reform. 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

[[Page 93966]]

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. In addition, this is the first year where the Board
considered an explicit higher bar for those countries close to the
upper end of the candidate pool, looking closely in such cases at a
country's access to development financing, the nature of poverty in the
country, and its policy performance.
As with previous years, a number of countries that performed well
on the quantitative elements of the eligibility criteria (i.e., on the
policy indicators) were not chosen as eligible countries for FY 2017.
FY 2017 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 and met the higher bars described above were newly selected
for MCC compacts, and only two countries for the threshold program.
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 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-fy17.
\3\ Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/guide-to-the-compact-survey-summary-fy15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Countries Newly Selected for Compact Assistance

Using the criteria described above, Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka, and
Tunisia are the only candidate countries under section 606(a) of the
Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)) that were newly selected for assistance under
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
Burkina Faso: With an ambitious reform agenda focused on poverty
reduction, a clearly improved scorecard, and the completion of its
first compact in July 2014, Burkina Faso exemplifies the higher bar MCC
has for second compact countries. Its continued policy improvement is
clear: Despite being one of the poorest countries in Africa, the
country passes 13 of 20 indicators, has shown strong improvement on
democratic rights, and has a consistently strong score on the Control
of Corruption indicator. In addition, the country has taken important
steps to ensure the sustainability of the first compact investments.
Sri Lanka: On the back of a successful election in 2015, Sri Lanka
now passes the MCC scorecard with 13 of 20 indicators met, including
the hard hurdles on both democratic rights and Control of Corruption.
In addition MCC has found Sri Lanka to be a high-capacity and committed
partner during development of the threshold program over the past year.
As a result, MCC feels Sri Lanka is now solidly exemplifying the
profile of compact partner, and has decided to move Sri Lanka from the
threshold program into the compact program. Work done to date in
developing the threshold program will now contribute to the compact
development process.
Tunisia: Tunisia meets the higher bar expected of candidate
countries that sit towards the upper end of the Lower Middle Income
Country pool (LMIC). It passes MCC's scorecard with 13 of 20 indicators
met, including very strong performance on democratic rights, as well as
Control of Corruption. The country also continues to confront major
development challenges, with significant inequality, large pockets of
poverty, and vulnerability undermining the recent strong democratic
gains. Together with a significant policy reform agenda, a compact with
Tunisia would provide MCC with a unique opportunity to partner with a
high-capacity partner in a critically important region.

Countries Reselected To Continue Compact Development

Three of the countries selected for compact assistance for FY 2017
were previously selected for FY 2016. These countries are Cote
d'Ivoire, Nepal and Senegal. The Board reselected these countries based
on their continued or improved policy performance since their prior
selection. Mongolia, which had originally been selected for compact
assistance for FY 2015, temporarily left the candidate pool in FY 2016
when it graduated to UMIC status. It has returned to the candidate pool
as a LMIC in FY 2017, and so the Board has once again selected the
country for compact assistance for FY 2017.

Countries Selected To Receive Threshold Program Assistance

The Board selected Kosovo and Timor-Leste to receive threshold
program assistance.
Kosovo: Kosovo is committed to reform and is a strong partner of
MCC--taking numerous steps to improve its scorecard performance since
2012, and ultimately being selected for compact assistance for FY 2016.
However, given Kosovo's trajectory on the Control of Corruption
indicator, the Board decided that threshold program assistance is a
more appropriate tool. By selecting Kosovo to receive threshold program
assistance, MCC will support the government in its efforts on continued
institutional and policy reform.
Timor-Leste: Timor-Leste offers MCC the opportunity to support the
government with its significant policy and institutional reform needs
as it confronts substantial poverty and capacity challenges, especially
in the face of a difficult macroeconomic environment. While it has
historically struggled to pass the MCC scorecard as an LMIC, Timor-
Leste has fallen into the LIC category, where it does pass MCC's
scorecard with 12 out of 20 indicators met, including both democratic
rights indicators and the Control of Corruption indicator.

Countries Reselected To Continue Developing Threshold Programs

This year the Board reselected Togo to continue developing a
threshold program. Togo continues to improve on MCC's scorecard,
passing more than half of the scorecard overall by meeting 12 of 20
indicators this year. It also continues to meet the democratic rights

[[Page 93967]]

hurdle and passed the Control of Corruption indicator for the first
time.

Ongoing Review of Partner Countries' Policy Performance

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. 2016-30805 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices 93965

Signed at Washington, DC, on December countries that would be candidate three broad policy areas. The Board
16, 2016. countries but for specified legal compared countries’ performance on the
David Michaels, prohibitions on assistance (section indicators relative to their income-level
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 608(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(a))); peers, evaluating them in comparison to
Safety and Health. 2. The criteria and methodology that either the group of low income
[FR Doc. 2016–30844 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am] the Board of Directors of MCC (the countries (‘‘LIC’’) or the group of lower
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P ‘‘Board’’) will use to measure and middle income countries (‘‘LMIC’’).
evaluate the policy performance of the The criteria and methodology used to
‘‘candidate countries’’ consistent with assess countries on the annual
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE the requirements of section 607 of the scorecards are outlined in the ‘‘Report
CORPORATION Act in order to select ‘‘eligible on the Criteria and Methodology for
countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate Determining the Eligibility of Candidate
[MCC FR 16–08] countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act (22 Countries for Millennium Challenge
U.S.C. 7707(b))); and Account Assistance in Fiscal Year
Report on the Selection of Eligible 3. The list of countries determined by 2017.’’ 1 Scorecards reflecting each
Countries for Fiscal Year 2017 the Board to be ‘‘eligible countries’’ for country’s performance on the indicators
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge FY 2017, with justification for eligibility are available on MCC’s Web site at
Corporation. determination and selection for compact www.mcc.gov/scorecards.
ACTION: Notice. negotiation, including with which of the The Board also considered whether
eligible countries the Board will seek to any adjustments should be made for
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This enter into compacts (section 608(d) of data gaps, data lags, or recent events
report is provided in accordance with the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(d))). since the indicators were published, as
section 608(d)(1) of the Millennium This is the third of the above- well as strengths or weaknesses in
Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–199, described reports by MCC for FY 2017. particular indicators. Where
Division D, (the ‘‘Act’’), 22 U.S.C. It identifies countries determined by the appropriate, the Board took into account
7708(d)(1). Board to be eligible under section 607 additional quantitative and qualitative
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY 2017 information, such as evidence of a
Dated: December 16, 2016.
with which the MCC will seek to enter country’s commitment to fighting
Sarah E. Fandell,
into compacts under section 609 of the corruption, investments in human
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Act (22 U.S.C. 7708), as well as the development outcomes, or poverty rates.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
justification for such decisions. The For example, for additional information
Report on the Selection of Eligible report also identifies countries selected in the area of corruption, the Board
Countries for Fiscal Year 2017 by the Board to receive assistance under considered how a country is evaluated
MCC’s threshold program pursuant to by supplemental sources like
Summary
section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7715). Transparency International’s Corruption
This report is provided in accordance Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity
with section 608(d)(1) of the Eligible Countries
Report, Open Government Partnership
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as The Board met on December 13, 2016 status, and the Extractive Industry
amended, Pub. L. 108–199, Division D, to select those eligible countries with Transparency Initiative, among others,
(the ‘‘Act’’) (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)). which the United States, through MCC, as well as on the defined indicator. The
The Act authorizes the provision of will seek to enter into a Millennium Board also took into account the margin
assistance under section 605 of the Act Challenge Compact pursuant to section of error around an indicator, when
(22 U.S.C. 7704) to countries that enter 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY applicable. In keeping with legislative
into compacts with the United States to 2017. The Board selected the following directives, the Board also considered the
support policies and programs that eligible countries for such assistance for opportunity to reduce poverty and
advance the progress of such countries FY 2017: Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka, and promote economic growth in a country,
in achieving lasting economic growth Tunisia. The Board also reselected the in light of the overall information
and poverty reduction, and are in following countries for compact available, as well as the availability of
furtherance of the Act. The Act requires assistance for FY 2017: Cote d’Ivoire, appropriated funds.
the Millennium Challenge Corporation Mongolia, Nepal, and Senegal. This was the eighth year the Board
(‘‘MCC’’) to determine the countries that considered the eligibility of countries
will be eligible to receive assistance for Criteria
for subsequent compacts, as permitted
the fiscal year, based on their In accordance with the Act and with under section 609(k) of the Act (22
demonstrated commitment to just and the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and U.S.C. 7708(k)). As in previous years,
democratic governance, economic Methodology for Determining the they considered the higher bar expected
freedom, and investing in their people, Eligibility of Candidate Countries for of subsequent compact countries,
as well as on the opportunity to reduce Millennium Challenge Account including examining the
poverty and generate economic growth Assistance in Fiscal Year 2017’’ implementation of the first compact,
in the country. The Act also requires the formally submitted to Congress on and evidence of both improved
submission of reports to appropriate September 20, 2016, selection was based scorecard policy performance and a
congressional committees and the primarily on a country’s overall commitment to reform. The Board also
performance in three broad policy
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

publication of notices in the Federal considered the eligibility of countries
Register that identify, among other categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging for initial compacts. The Board sees the
things: Economic Freedom, and Investing in selection decision as an annual
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate People. The Board relied, to the opportunity to determine where MCC
countries’’ for assistance for fiscal year maximum extent possible, upon funds can be most effectively invested
(‘‘FY’’) 2017 based on their per-capita transparent and independent indicators
income levels and their eligibility to to assess countries’ policy performance 1 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/

receive assistance under U.S. law, and and demonstrated commitment in these doc/report-selection-criteria-and-methodology-fy17.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Dec 21, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices 93967

hurdle and passed the Control of Foundation, including whether the products. NSF tracks I-Corps Teams’
Corruption indicator for the first time. information will have practical utility; progress, as they are expected to hit
(b) the accuracy of the Foundation’s milestones for the duration of the
Ongoing Review of Partner Countries’
estimate of the burden of the proposed training and throughout the 6-month
Policy Performance
collection of information; (c) ways to grant period. Additionally, NSF
The Board emphasized the need for enhance the quality, utility, and clarity monitors I-Corps Teams’ project
all partner countries to maintain or of the information to be collected; and outcomes after the grant period, with
improve their policy performance. If it (d) ways to minimize the burden of the longitudinal surveys conducted with I-
is determined during compact collection of information on those who Corps Teams at two future intervals,
implementation that a country has are to respond, including through the time 1, at least one year after the end of
demonstrated a significant policy use of automated collection techniques the training, and time 2, at least one
reversal, MCC can hold it accountable or other forms of information year after time 1. To date, only time 1
by applying MCC’s Suspension and technology. Please submit one copy of longitudinal surveys have been
Termination Policy.4 your comments by only one method. All conducted.
[FR Doc. 2016–30805 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am] submissions received must include the This notice supports NSF’s efforts to
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P agency name and collection name monitor and evaluate the I-Corps Teams
identified above for this information program at NSF and NIH. It is a follow
collection. Commenters are strongly up to a previously approved data
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION encouraged to transmit their comments collection request related to I-Corps.
electronically via email. Comments, NSF previously received clearance for
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To including any personal information two longitudinal surveys of I-Corps
Establish an Information Collection provided, become a matter of public team members after the completion of
System record. They will be summarized and/ the program to continuously track
or included in the request for Office of entrepreneurial outcomes [Federal
National Science Foundation.
AGENCY:
Management and Budget approval of the Register Vol. 80 No. 25, February 06,
Notice and request for
ACTION:
information collection request. 2015 pages 6773–6774, OMB clearance
comments. Title of Collection: Innovation Corps number 3145–0238, expiration date:
SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork (I-Corps) Teams Program Survey of April 30, 2018]. NSF is seeking to
Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its Program Participants and NSF Principal modify the survey instrument approved
continuing effort to reduce paperwork Investigators. for the second longitudinal survey,
and respondent burden, the National OMB Number: 3145–NEW. administered at time 2.
Type of request: Intent to seek Additionally, NSF is also reaffirming
Science Foundation (NSF) is inviting
approval to establish an information its intent to conduct a survey of NSF PIs
the general public or other Federal
collection. who did not participate in I-Corps. This
agencies to comment on this proposed Abstract: In fiscal year 2011, NSF intent was previously published in a
continuing information collection. created the Innovation Corps (I-Corps) Federal Register notice on December 04,
DATES: Written comments on this notice Teams Program to build a national 2015 [Volume 80, number 233 pages
must be received by February 21, 2017, innovation ecosystem by accelerating 75881–75882]. This survey of additional
to be assured consideration. Comments innovation among identified NSF- PIs supports a rigorous longitudinal
received after that date will be funded researchers. The I-Corps Teams outcome/impact evaluation of the I-
considered to the extent practicable. Program provides training, mentoring, Corps Team Program using a quasi-
Send comments to address below. and a small grant to help project teams experimental design to understand I-
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Ms. determine the readiness of their Corps impact on teams that go through
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance technology products for transition to the program and its impact on team
Officer, National Science Foundation, commercialization. By design, I-Corps members and academic culture.
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Teams are composed of one principal This information collection request
Arlington, Virginia 22230; or via email investigator (PI), an entrepreneurial lead relates to: (1) A revision to previously
to splimpto@nsf.gov. (EL), and a local mentor. NSF’s I-Corps cleared survey instrument for I-Corps
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Teams program model has been team participants; (2) a similar survey
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance replicated in other Federal agencies that instrument for PIs in comparable non-I-
Officer, National Science Foundation, sponsor research, including the National Corps NSF projects; and (3) a proposed
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Institutes of Health (NIH). NSF and NIH instrument for in-depth interviews with
Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone have a memorandum of understanding 10 I-Corps and 10 comparable non-I-
(703) 292–7556; or send email to to cooperate in the implementation and Corps teams (including institutional
splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use monitoring of I-Corps at NIH. support personnel). The survey
a telecommunications device for the As part of I-Corps, teams receive instrument for the non-I-Corps PIs is
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal entrepreneurial training and ongoing modeled after the content of the I-Corps
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– support for the 6-month duration of the longitudinal time 2 instrument to enable
800–877–8339, which is accessible 24 grant. The I-Corps support facilitates a direct comparison of outputs and
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a each team’s entrepreneurial efforts. The outcomes. For the most part, it replaces
year (including federal holidays). grant requires I-Corps awardees to specific references to I-Corps training
participate in an intensive immersion
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and the I-Corps project that was the
Comments: Comments are invited on: training on entrepreneurship (a 3-day focus of commercial exploration with
(a) Whether the proposed collection of opening workshop, 5 weeks of activities references to any other training and NSF
information is necessary for the proper with online classes, and a 2-day final project that was the focus of commercial
performance of the functions of the workshop). The training follows a exploration.
structured approach to give team The survey of non-I-Corps PIs will
4 Available at https://www.mcc.gov/resources/ members hands-on experience in begin with an initial screening module
doc/policy-on-suspension-and-termination. transferring knowledge into commercial to identify those who have received

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Dec 21, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1

Document Created: 2016-12-21 23:52:37
Document Modified: 2016-12-21 23:52:37

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		81 FR 93965