### 16852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). proposed market wide parameter will protect ISE and ISE Gemini market makers from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk across both markets. Reducing such risk will enable market makers to enter quotations without any fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition

The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition. The proposed rule change is meant to protect market makers from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk when trading on both ISE and ISE Gemini. Accordingly, the proposed rule change will have no impact on competition. Market makers are not required to use the proposed functionality and may use their own risk-management systems and enter out-of-range values so that the Exchange-provided parameters will not be triggered. Accordingly, the proposal does not require members to use ormanage their risk using an Exchangeprovided tool. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

Within 45 days of the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasonsfor so finding or (ii) as to which the selfregulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or

(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission’s Internet comment form ( http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– ISE–2014–09 on the subject line.
Paper Comments

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ISE–2014–09. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s Internet Web site ( http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ISE–2014–09, and should be submitted on or before April 16,
2014.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–06599 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 8011–01–P DEPARTMENT OF STATE** 

**[Public Notice 8673]**

**FY 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report Pursuant to Section 7031(B) of the**  **Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs**  **Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112–74), as Carried Forward by the**  **Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113–6); 2013**  **Fiscal Transparency Report**

**AGENCY :**  Department of State.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the FY 2013 fiscal transparency review process in its second annual Fiscal Transparency Report. This report describes the minimum standards of fiscal transparency developed by the Department of State, identifies countries that did not meet these standards, and indicates whether those countries made progress towards meeting these standards. Fiscal Transparency

Fiscal transparency is a critical element of effective public financial management, helps in building market confidence, and sets the stage for economic sustainability. Transparency also provides a window into government budgets for citizens of any country, helping them to hold their leadership accountable. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines fiscal transparency as ‘‘the clarity, reliability, frequency, timeliness, and relevance of public fiscal reporting and the openness to the public of the government’s fiscal policy-making process.’’

Annual reviews of the fiscal transparency of countries that receive U.S. assistance via their central governments help to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is used appropriately and to sustain a dialogue with governments to improve their fiscal performance, leading to greater macroeconomic stability and better development outcomes.

Section 7031(b)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112–74) (SFOAA), as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113–6) (CR), restricts U.S. assistance to the central government of any country that does not meet the Department’s minimum standards of fiscal transparency, unless the Secretary of State, or his designee, determines that a waiver is important to


### 16853 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices

the U.S. national interest. The Deputy Secretary of State made those determinations for FY2013. For countries that did not meet the minimum standards, the Deputy Secretary also determined whether those governments made progress toward meeting those standards.

This report describes the minimum standards of fiscal transparency developed by the Department of State, identifies the countries that did not meet the standard, and indicates whether those countries made progress toward meeting the standard. Fiscal Transparency Review Process

In FY 2013, the Department of State assessed fiscal transparency in 49 countries that were potential beneficiaries of FY 2013 foreign assistance funds via their central governments, determined whether the minimum standards were met, and identified measures those countries had implemented to make progress towards meeting the standards. Progress on fiscal transparency can mean publishing adequate budget documents, adopting more robust accounting procedures to verify expenditures, or other measures to improve public financial management.

The Department considered information from U.S. embassies and consulates, international organizations such as the IMF and multilateral development banks, and from civil society organizations. U.S. diplomatic missions engaged with foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and civil society to obtain information for these assessments.

When a country does not meet the minimum standards of fiscal transparency, U.S. diplomatic missions, with input and assistance from USAID, develop and implement action plans to work with governments, international organizations, and NGOs to improve the availability, reliability, and content of a country’s budget documents. Such plans present short and long-term actions that the foreign government can take, often with assistance from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, to improve budget transparency. Examples of actions from previous plans include implementing a financial management system to assist in improving internal controls; approving freedom of information legislation; funding NGOs to provide training on budget oversight; and coordinating with international organizations to monitor budget transparency issues. Minimum Standards of Fiscal Transparency

The SFOAA, as carried forward by the CR, provides that the minimum standards of fiscal transparency developed by the Department shall include standards for the public disclosure of budget documentation, including:

• Receipts and expenditures by ministry.

• Government contracts and licenses for natural resource extraction, to include bidding and concession allocation practices.

The FY 2013 fiscal transparency review process evaluated whether the central governments of countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance publicly disclosed budget documents including receipts and expenditures by ministry. The review also assessed the existence and public disclosure of standards for government contracts and licenses for natural resource extraction, including bidding and concession allocation practices. In addition, to meet the minimum standards of fiscal transparency, budget data generally should be:

• Substantially Complete: Budget documents should provide a substantially full picture of a country’s revenue streams, including natural resource revenues, and planned expenditures. Therefore, a published budget that does not include significant cash or non-cash resources, including foreign aid or the balances of special accounts or off-budget accounts, would not be considered transparent. Budget documents also should disclose, insome fashion, financial results of stateowned enterprises. The review process recognizes that military and/or intelligence budgets are often not publicly available for national security

reasons.

• Reliable: Budget documents and related data are considered reliable if they are accurate and disseminated on time. Actual receipts and expenditures should be reasonably correlated to the budget plan, and significant departures from planned activities should be explained in supplementary budget documents and publicly disclosed in a timely manner.

• Transparent: Budgets fulfill the ‘‘public disclosure’’ criteria if they are broadly available on-line, at government offices or libraries, on request from the ministry, or for purchase at a nominal fee at a government office.

The Department recognizes that the specific circumstances and practices of fiscal transparency differ between countries. The review process takes a tailored approach in evaluating countries to make a determination of whether the central government provides an adequate level of budget detail to enable participation, monitoring, and feedback from civil society groups. Conclusions of Review Process

In FY 2013, the Department reviewed 49 countries that were potential beneficiaries of FY 2013 U.S. foreign assistance via their central governments, assessed whether they met the Department’s minimum standards of fiscal transparency and identified measures those countries had implemented to make progress towards meeting the minimum standards. The Department concluded that 34 of the 49 countries did not meet the minimum standards of fiscal transparency, and that 27 non-transparent countries made progress in meeting the minimum standards of fiscal transparency.

The following table lists the 34countries that were found to be nontransparent and whether they made progress toward meeting the minimum standards:

Countries whosecentral governments receivedor were considered for assistance assessedto be non-transparent Progress No progress

Afghanistan ....... X .................... Algeria ............... X .................... Burma ............... X .................... Cambodia ......... X .................... Cameroon ......... X .................... Central African

Republic ........ .................... X Chad ................. X ....................Dominican Republic ............. X .................... DRC .................. X .................... Egypt ................. X .................... Ethiopia ............. X .................... Fiji ..................... X .................... Gabon ............... .................... X Gambia ............. X .................... Guinea .............. X .................... Haiti ................... X .................... Lebanon ............ X .................... Libya ................. X .................... Madagascar ...... .................... X Nicaragua ......... X .................... Niger ................. X .................... Nigeria .............. X .................... Republic of

Congo ............ .................... X Saudi Arabia ..... X .................... Somalia ............. X .................... South Sudan ..... X .................... Suriname .......... X .................... Swaziland ......... X .................... Tajikistan ........... X .................... Turkmenistan .... .................... X Ukraine ............. X ....................


### 16854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices

Countries whosecentral governments receivedor were considered for assistance assessedto be non-transparent Progress No progress

Uzbekistan ........ .................... X Yemen .............. .................... X Zimbabwe ......... X ....................

Dated: March 14, 2014. Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014–06694 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4710–07–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF STATE**

**[Public Notice 8672]**

**Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Terra**  **Cotta Warriors: The Emperor’s Painted Army, Directly From China’s Shaanxi**  **Province’’ Exhibition**

**SUMMARY :**  Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et
seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition ‘‘Terra Cotta Warriors: The Emperor’s Painted Army, Directly from China’s Shaanxi Province,’’ imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, from on or about May 9, 2014, until on or about November 2, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.

Dated: March 19, 2014. Kelly Keiderling, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014–06723 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4710–05–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Office of the Secretary**

**Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity**  **and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q)**  **During the Week Ending March 8, 2014**

The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation’s Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.

Docket Number: DOT–OST–2005– 22228 and DOT–OST–2011–0076.

Date Filed: March 6, 2014. Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: March 27, 2014.

Description: Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation requesting renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate scheduled combination service between the United States, from Boston, MA (BOS), Fort Lauderdale, FL (FLL), New York, NY (JFK) and Orlando, FL (MCO), on the one hand, and Cancun, Mexico (CUN), on the other hand.

Barbara J. Hairston, Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014–06640 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**Research, Engineering And Development Advisory Committee;**  **Notice of Meeting**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of meeting.

Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Advisory Committee.

Name: Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee.

Time and Date: April 17—8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.—Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591.

Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the Committee guidance for FAA’s research and development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the meeting or obtain information should contact Gloria Dunderman at (202) 267–8937 or gloria.dunderman@faa.gov. Members of the public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC on: March 19,
2014. Gloria Dunderman, Management & Program Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2014–06693 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**[Docket No. FAA–2007–29320]**

**Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of extension to Order.

**SUMMARY :**  This action amends the Order Limiting Operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) that published on January 18, 2008, and was amended on February 14, 2008, October 7, 2009, April 4, 2011, and May 14, 2013. The Order remains effective until the final Rule on Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport,