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 or 

manage 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 reasons 

for 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices 16853 

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, in 

some 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 34 

countries that were found to be nontransparent and whether they made 

progress toward meeting the minimum 

standards: 

Countries whose 

central governments received 

or were considered for assistance assessed 

to 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 ....................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices 

Countries whose 

central governments received 

or were considered for assistance assessed 

to 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, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES