Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2423 

occurring before Executive Order 12015 

is revoked? 

DATES: All briefs submitted in response 

to this notice shall be filed with the 

Clerk of the Board on or before February 

7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned 

‘‘Jeffrey Denton v. Department of 

Agriculture,’’ and entitled ‘‘Amicus 

Brief.’’ Only one copy of the brief need 

be submitted. Briefs must be filed with 

the Office of the Clerk of the Board, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems 

Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of 

the Board, 1615 M Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653–7200; 

mspb@mspb.gov. 

William D. Spencer, 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–633 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 11–01] 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2011 

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, 

Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the 

‘‘Act’’), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1). 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2011 

Summary 

This report is provided in accordance 

with section 608(d)(1) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, 

Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the 

‘‘Act’’) (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)). 

The Act authorizes the provision of 

Millennium Challenge Account (‘‘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 during 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 MCA assistance during 

fiscal year 2011 (‘‘FY11’’) 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 ‘‘MCA 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 ‘‘MCA eligible countries’’ 

for FY11, with justification for 

eligibility determination and selection 

for compact negotiation, including with 

which of the MCA eligible countries the 

Board will seek to enter into MCA 

compacts (section 608(d) of the Act (22 

U.S.C. 7707(d))). 

This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC for FY11. It 

identifies countries determined by the 

Board to be eligible under section 607 

of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY11 and 

countries with which the Board 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. 

Eligible Countries 

The Board met on January 5, 2011, to 

select countries that will be eligible for 

MCA compact assistance under section 

607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for 

FY11. The Board selected the following 

countries as eligible for such assistance 

for FY11: Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana, 

Indonesia, Malawi, and Zambia. 

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 2011’’ formally 

submitted to the Congress on September 

30, 2010, selection was based primarily 

on a country’s overall performance in 

three broad policy categories: Ruling 

Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, 

and Investing in People. As a basis for 

determining which countries would be 

eligible for MCA compact assistance, the 

Board relied, to the maximum extent 

possible, upon 17 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 lowermiddle income countries (‘‘LMIC’’). In 

particular, the Board considered if a 

country performed above the median in 

relation to its peers on at least three 

indicators in each of the Ruling Justly, 

Investing in People, and Encouraging 

Economic Freedom policy categories, 

and above the median on the Control of 

Corruption indicator. Scorecards 

reflecting each country’s performance 

on the indicators are available on MCC’s 

Web site at http://www.mcc.gov. 

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 and promoting democratic 

governance, and its effective protection 

of human rights. For countries that 

graduated from the LIC group to the 

LMIC group within the last two years, 

due to an increase in their per capita 

gross national income, the Board also 

took into account supplemental 

information that showed how the new 

LMIC countries would have performed 

in comparison to the LIC group. This is 

consistent with a 2009 congressional 

decision to allow MCC to fund as LICs 

a set of countries that had recently 

transitioned to the LMIC category. 

Finally, the Board considered the 

opportunity to reduce poverty and 

promote economic growth in a country, 

in light of the overall context of the 

information available, as well as the 

availability of appropriated funds. 

This was the second 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)). 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 partnership with MCC, the 

degree to which the country has 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2424 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

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. 

Using this higher bar to measure 

eligibility, Ghana and Georgia were 

selected as eligible for MCA assistance 

for a second compact under section 607 

of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706). 

As a candidate country under section 

606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)), 

Ghana consistently performs well on the 

MCC indicator criteria. Its continued 

track record of democratic governance is 

demonstrated by its regular ranking 

among the top LIC performers in the 

Ruling Justly category. Implementation 

of Ghana’s Compact is on track to 

achieve its objectives, and the 

investment is managed by a strong 

Ghanaian-led and staffed team. The 

Ghana Compact has also already 

generated tangible interest from the 

private sector. MCC believes that a 

second compact offers opportunities for 

deeper investment in a low income 

country that not only has a 

demonstrated commitment to a positive 

policy environment and effective 

program implementation, but is also 

considered a regional economic anchor 

in West Africa. 

As a candidate country under section 

606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(b)), 

Georgia performs well on the MCC 

indicator criteria, even after having 

transitioned from the LIC group to the 

more competitive LMIC group two years 

ago. Georgia is widely recognized as an 

investment climate reformer and is 

regularly among the top performers in 

the Encouraging Economic Freedom 

category for all MCC candidate 

countries. Although Georgia does not 

meet the formal indicator criteria in the 

Investing in People category this year, 

supplemental information, including 

analysis from the World Health 

Organization, describes a situation in 

which the performance on MCC’s 

Immunization Rates indicator can be 

largely attributed to a temporary 

shortage of one vaccine and the 

introduction of alternative, private 

vaccination facilities that were not 

captured in 2010 data. As a result, MCC 

does not have policy concerns in this 

category. The government of Georgia has 

demonstrated commitment to the 

ongoing Georgia Compact and the 

Georgian-led implementation unit is 

effectively managing the compact 

through its final months. MCC sees a 

subsequent compact in Georgia as an 

opportunity to support growth and 

poverty reduction in a country with a 

track record of rigorous policy reform 

and a desire to foster private sector 

investment in its own development. 

Country partners that are developing 

or implementing compacts must also 

show a commitment to maintaining and 

improving their policy performance. 

While MCC’s indicators work well as a 

transparent way of identifying those 

countries that are most committed to 

sound development policies and for 

discerning trends over the mediumterm, they are not as well-suited for 

tracking incremental progress from yearto-year. Countries may be generally 

maintaining performance but not meet 

the criteria in a given year due to factors 

such as: 

• Graduation from the LIC category to 

the LMIC category, 

• Data improvements or revisions, 

• MCC’s introduction of two new 

indicators in fiscal year 2008 and the 

accompanying requirement that 

countries pass three of the five 

indicators in the Investing in People 

category, 

• Increases in peer-group medians for 

some indicators, and 

• Slight declines in performance. 

Four of the countries selected as 

eligible for MCA compact assistance in 

FY11 were previously selected as 

eligible last year. Because they have not 

yet signed a compact agreement, they 

needed to be reselected as eligible for 

FY11 to continue compact development 

and receive funding from this fiscal 

year. Two of these countries are in the 

LIC category: Malawi and Zambia. Two 

countries, Indonesia and Cape Verde, 

are in the LMIC category. 

The Board reselected these countries 

based on their continued good 

performance since their prior selection. 

The Board determined that since their 

fiscal year 2010 selection, there has 

been no material change in their 

performance on the indicator criteria 

that indicates a serious decline in policy 

performance. This includes the two 

countries—Cape Verde and Indonesia— 

that do not meet the formal indicator 

criteria this year. Although the data 

available at the time of the publication 

of the scorecards suggested that Cape 

Verde did not meet the Investing in 

People criteria this year, after the 

publication of the scorecards, revised 

data for FY11 were received from 

UNESCO. The revised data for the 

expenditures on primary education 

indicator indicate that Cape Verde 

would have passed this indicator, and 

the Investing in People category, had the 

revised figures been available at the 

time of scorecard publication. 

Additionally, Cape Verde’s progress in 

achieving high levels of primary 

education attainment is widely 

recognized by third party experts. 

Indonesia transitioned to the more 

competitive LMIC category last year and 

fares less well against the higher 

standards, but would have continued to 

meet MCC’s indicator criteria as an LIC. 

Last year, Congress granted MCC 

authority that allows Indonesia to be 

funded as a LIC for up to three years. 

The Board also reviewed the policy 

performance of countries that are 

implementing compacts. However, these 

countries do not need to be reselected 

each year in order to continue 

implementation. Once MCC makes a 

commitment to a country through a 

compact agreement, MCC will not 

consider the country for reselection on 

an annual basis during the term of its 

compact. MCC will continue to work 

with a country—even if it does not meet 

the indicator criteria each year—as long 

as the country has not demonstrated a 

pattern of actions inconsistent with the 

eligibility criteria. If it is determined 

that a country has demonstrated a 

significant policy reversal, MCC can 

hold it accountable by applying MCC’s 

Suspension and Termination Policy. 

The Board emphasized the need for 

all partners to continue to improve their 

policy environment and, if they do not 

meet the criteria, to demonstrate their 

ongoing commitment by informing MCC 

of actions they are undertaking. 

Countries participating in this policy 

improvement process may work with 

MCC to develop and implement a 

forward-looking action plan that 

outlines the steps they plan to take to 

improve performance on certain policy 

criteria, including key areas of 

governance (e.g., public financial 

management), or provide periodic 

reports on government efforts to 

improve performance on specific 

indicators. MCC recognizes that there 

are cases in which countries that do not 

meet the indicator criteria have not 

demonstrated a significant policy 

reversal. 

Finally, 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 FY11. As 

discussed above, the Board considered a 

variety of factors in addition to the 

country’s performance on the policy 

indicators in determining whether it 

was an appropriate candidate for 

assistance (e.g., the country’s 

commitment to fighting corruption and 

promoting democratic governance; the 

availability of appropriated funds; and 

where MCC would likely have the best 

opportunity to reduce poverty and 

generate economic growth). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2425 

Selection To Initiate the Compact 

Process 

The Board also authorized MCC to 

invite Ghana and Georgia to submit a 

proposal for a second compact, as 

described in section 609 of the Act (22 

U.S.C. 7708). 

Submission of a proposal is not a 

guarantee that MCC will finalize a 

compact with an eligible country. Any 

MCA assistance provided under section 

605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) will be 

contingent on the successful negotiation 

of a mutually agreeable compact 

between the eligible country and MCC, 

approval of the compact by the Board, 

and the availability of funds. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Melvin F. Williams, Jr., 

VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–609 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

National Science Board; Sunshine Act 

Meetings; Notice 

The National Science Board’s Task 

Force on Merit Review, pursuant to NSF 

regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the 

National Science Foundation Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the 

Government in the Sunshine Act (5 

U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in 

regard to the scheduling of a meeting 

held by teleconference for the 

transaction of National Science Board 

business and other matters specified, as 

follows: 

DATE AND TIME: January 19, 2011, 11 a.m. 

to 12 p.m. EST. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Chairman’s remarks 

and a discussion of Section 526 of the 

FY10 America Competes 

Reauthorization Act (Broader Impacts 

Review Criterion). 

STATUS: Open. 

LOCATION: This meeting will be held by 

teleconference at the National Science 

Board Office, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. A room will be 

available for the public to listen-in to 

this meeting held by teleconference. All 

visitors must contact the Board Office at 

least 24 hours prior to the meeting held 

by teleconference to arrange for a 

visitor’s badge and to obtain the room 

number. Call 703–292–7000 or send an 

e-mail message to 

nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov with your 

name and organizational affiliation to 

request the room number and your 

badge, which will be ready for pick-up 

at the visitor’s desk the day of the 

meeting. All visitors must report to the 

NSF visitor desk located in the lobby at 

the 9th and N. Stuart Streets entrance to 

receive your visitor’s badge on the day 

of the teleconference. 

UPDATES AND POINT OF CONTACT: Please 

refer to the National Science Board Web 

site http://www.nsf.gov/nsb for 

additional information and schedule 

updates (time, place, subject matter or 

status of meeting) may be found at 

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point 

of contact for this meeting is: Kim 

Silverman, National Science Board 

Office, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 

VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292–7000. 

Daniel A. Lauretano, 

Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–705 Filed 1–11–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0263] 

Draft Regulatory Guide: Reissuance 

and Availability 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Reissuance and 

Availability of Draft Regulatory Guide 

(DG)–1229. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aaron Szabo, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: 301–415–1985 or email: Aaron.Szabo@nrc.gov. 

SUMMARY: DG–1229 was previously 

issued for public comment in June 2009, 

and the Commission approved RG 1.159 

subject to changes which are spelled out 

in a Staff Requirements Memorandum 

dated October 25, 2010 

(ML1029805650). Because of the nature 

of the changes, the draft guide is being 

reissued for comment, and during that 

period, NRR will hold a public 

workshop to solicit comments from 

stakeholders and other relevant experts 

on the use of the net present value 

method for parent guarantees in license 

transfer cases. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment a draft guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public such information 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the NRC’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

The draft regulatory guide (DG), 

entitled, ‘‘Assuring the Availability of 

Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear 

Reactors,’’ is temporarily identified by 

its task number, DG–1229, which 

should be mentioned in all related 

correspondence. DG–1229 is proposed 

Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.159, 

dated October 2003. 

The general requirements for 

applications for license termination and 

decommissioning nuclear power, 

research, and test reactors appear in 

Title 10, Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

Part 50). Subsequent to the original 

publication of this regulatory guide in 

August 1990, the NRC promulgated 

amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 in the 

Federal Register on September 22, 1998 

(63 FR 50465). Various amendments 

modified 10 CFR 50.33(k), 10 CFR 

50.75, ‘‘Reporting and Recordkeeping for 

Decommissioning Planning,’’ and 10 

CFR 50.82(b), which require operating 

license applicants and existing licensees 

to submit information on how 

reasonable assurance will be provided 

that funds are available to 

decommission the facility. The NRC 

promulgated additional amendments to 

10 CFR 50.75 on December 24, 2002, in 

the Federal Register (67 FR 78332). As 

amended, 10 CFR 50.75 establishes 

requirements for indicating how this 

assurance will be provided; namely, the 

amount of funds that must be provided, 

including updates; the methods to be 

used for assuring funds; and provisions 

contained in trust agreements for 

safeguarding decommissioning funds. 

This document provides guidance to 

applicants and licensees of nuclear 

power, research, and test reactors 

concerning methods acceptable to the 

staff of the NRC for complying with 

requirements in the rules regarding the 

amount of funds for decommissioning. 

It also provides guidance on the content 

and form of the financial assurance 

mechanisms in those rule amendments. 

II. Further Information 

The NRC staff is soliciting comments 

on DG–1229. Comments may be 

accompanied by relevant information or 

supporting data and should mention 

DG–1229 in the subject line. Comments 

submitted in writing or in electronic 

form will be made available to the 

public in their entirety through the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES