47620 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 09–16] 

Report on the Criteria and 

Methodology for Determining the 

Eligibility of Candidate Countries for 

Millennium Challenge Account 

Assistance in Fiscal Year 2010 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This report to Congress is 

provided in accordance with Section 

608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act 

of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) 

(the ‘‘Act’’). 

Dated: September 14, 2009. 

Henry C. Pitney, 

(Acting) Vice President and General Counsel, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

Report on the Criteria and Methodology 

for Determining the Eligibility of 

Candidate Countries for Millennium 

Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal 

Year 2010 Summary 

This report to Congress is provided in 

accordance with section 608(b) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as 

amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The Act authorizes the provision of 

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) 

assistance to countries that enter into 

compacts with the United States to 

support policies and programs that 

advance the prospects of such countries 

achieving lasting economic growth and 

poverty reduction. The Act requires the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(MCC) to take a number of steps in 

determining what countries will be 

eligible for MCA assistance during fiscal 

year 2010 (FY10) based on the 

countries’ demonstrated commitment to 

just and democratic governance, 

economic freedom, investing in their 

people, and the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth 

in the country. These steps include the 

submission of reports to the 

congressional committees specified in 

the Act and the publication of notices in 

the Federal Register that identify: 

1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for MCA assistance during 

FY10 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 relative policy performance of the 

candidate countries consistent with the 

requirements of section 607 of the Act 

(22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine 

‘‘MCA eligible countries’’ from among 

the ‘‘candidate countries’’ (section 

608(b) of the Act); and 

3. The list of countries determined by 

the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible 

countries’’ for FY10, with justification 

for eligibility determination and 

selection for compact negotiation, 

including which of the MCA eligible 

countries the Board will seek to enter 

into MCA compacts (section 608(d) of 

the Act). 

This report sets out the criteria and 

methodology to be applied in 

determining eligibility for new partner 

countries for FY10 MCA assistance. 

The Criteria and Methodology for FY10 

MCC reviews all of its indicators and 

methodology annually and, from time to 

time, recommends changes or 

refinements if MCC identifies better 

methodologies, better indicators, or 

improved sources of data. MCC takes 

into account public comments received 

on the previous year’s criteria and 

methodology and consults with a broad 

range of experts in the development 

community and within the U.S. 

Government. 

In response to a request in the 

Explanatory Statement accompanying 

the 2009 Department of State, Foreign 

Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act, MCC considered an 

indicator that takes into account the 

votes and positions of the countries in 

international and multilateral 

institutions with respect to human 

rights; however, MCC’s current 

indicator framework already includes 

three indicators—Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, and Voice and 

Accountability—that measure 

government commitment to human and 

democratic rights within their own 

borders. These indicators are better 

suited for measuring a government’s 

commitment to human rights than its 

voting record, which can be influenced 

by political goals. Thus, such a measure 

is not a good fit for MCC’s indicatorbased system, as it would potentially 

politicize the country selection process. 

In keeping with MCC’s commitment 

to aid effectiveness through the regular 

evaluation of its own practice, the 

agency plans to review the selection 

criteria and methodology as a whole in 

2010. This will include, as a matter of 

course, consultations with a broad 

group of stakeholders. As a first step, we 

invite broad participation in the 30-day 

public comment period that follows the 

publication of this report. 

Changes to the Criteria and 

Methodology for FY10 

Approach to Country Income 

Graduation 

Every year, changes in candidate 

countries’ income status substantially 

affect MCC’s candidate country pool— 

some countries ‘‘graduate’’ from one 

income category to another; low income 

countries (LIC) become reclassified as 

lower middle income countries (LMIC), 

and LMICs are reclassified as upper 

middle income countries. Changes in 

economic growth rates, exchange rates, 

and relative inflation can contribute to 

country graduation, without necessarily 

representing a dramatic or immediate 

improvement in overall living standards 

of the country’s population. 

Because MCC evaluates the relative 

performance of LICs and LMICs in 

separate income groups, when a country 

graduates from LIC to LMIC, it typically 

does not meet the higher performance 

standards in its new group, even if it 

performed relatively well as an LIC, 

and, in absolute terms, maintained or 

improved performance over the 

previous year. 

To address the challenges associated 

with graduating countries that have 

experienced no real change in 

performance, MCC is adopting an 

approach to income graduation in 

which a country that graduates from LIC 

to LMIC will have its indicator 

performance considered both relative to 

its LMIC peers as well as in comparison 

to the current fiscal year’s LIC pool for 

a period of three years. This practice is 

consistent with the flexible, gradual 

graduation approaches of other donor 

institutions. 

Eligibility for Consecutive Compact 

Several of MCC’s early compacts are 

due to conclude within the next two 

years. MCC’s experience to date suggests 

that compact development takes 

approximately 18 months. To maximize 

benefits of lessons learned in the first 

compact, the Board may determine that 

certain compact countries should be 

selected as eligible to develop a second 

compact before the completion of their 

first compact program. 

For FY10, when determining a 

country’s eligibility for a second 

compact, MCC will consider, among 

other factors, the country’s policy 

performance using the selection criteria 

and methodology outlined in this 

report, the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth 

in the country, and the country’s 

performance implementing its first 

compact. To assess implementation of a 

first compact, the MCC recommends 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 47621 

that the Board consider the nature of the 

country 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. 

Criteria and Methodology 

The Board will determine eligible 

countries based on several factors 

including (i) their overall performance 

in three broad policy categories—Ruling 

Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, 

and Investing in People; and (ii) the 

opportunity to reduce poverty and 

generate economic growth. Section 607 

of the Act requires that the Board’s 

determination of eligibility be based ‘‘to 

the maximum extent possible, upon 

objective and quantifiable indicators of 

a country’s demonstrated commitment’’ 

to the criteria set out in the Act. 

For FY10, there will be two groups of 

candidate countries—LICs and LMICs. 

LIC candidates refer to those countries 

that have a per capita income equal to 

or less than $1,855 and are not ineligible 

to receive United States economic 

assistance under part I of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 by reason of the 

application of any provision of the 

Foreign Assistance Act or any other 

provision of law. Lower middle income 

candidate countries are those that have 

a per capita income between $1,856 and 

$3,855 and are not ineligible to receive 

United States economic assistance. 

The Board will make use of seventeen 

indicators to assess policy performance 

of individual countries (specific 

definitions of the indicators and their 

sources are set out in annex A). These 

indicators are grouped for purposes of 

the FY10 assessment methodology 

under the three policy categories listed 

below. 

Ruling justly Encouraging economic freedom Investing in people 

1. Civil Liberties 1. Inflation 1. Public Expenditure on Health. 

2. Political Rights 2. Fiscal Policy 2. Public Expenditure on Primary Education. 

3. Voice and Accountability 3. Business Start-Up 3. Immunization Rates (DPT3 and Measles). 

4. Government Effectiveness 4. Trade Policy 4. Girls’ Primary Education Completion. 

5. Rule of Law 5. Regulatory Quality 5. Natural Resource Management. 

6. Control of Corruption 6. Land Rights and Access 

In making its determination of 

eligibility with respect to a particular 

candidate country, the Board will 

consider whether a country performs 

above the median in relation to its 

income level peers (LIC or LMIC) on at 

least half of the indicators in the Ruling 

Justly and Encouraging Economic 

Freedom categories, above the median 

on at least three of the five indicators in 

the Investing in People category, and 

above the median on the Control of 

Corruption indicator. One exception to 

this methodology is that the median is 

not used for the Inflation indicator. 

Instead, to pass the Inflation indicator a 

country’s inflation rate needs to be 

under a fixed ceiling of 15 percent. The 

Board will also take into consideration 

whether a country performs 

substantially below the median on any 

indicator (i.e. in the bottom 25th 

percentile) and has not taken 

appropriate measures to address this 

shortcoming. 

Each year a number of countries shift 

income groups, and some countries 

formerly classified as LICs suddenly 

face new, higher performance standards 

in the LMIC group. To address the 

challenges associated with sudden 

changes in criteria for these countries, 

MCC has adopted an approach to 

income graduation whereby the Board 

may consider the indicator performance 

of countries that graduated from the LIC 

to the LMIC category in FY10 both 

relative to their LMIC peers as well as 

in comparison to the current fiscal 

year’s LIC pool for a period of three 

years. 

Consistent with the Act, the 

indicators will be the predominant basis 

for determining which countries will be 

eligible for MCA assistance. However, 

the Board may exercise discretion when 

evaluating performance on the 

indicators and determining a final list of 

eligible countries. Where necessary, the 

Board may also take into account other 

quantitative and qualitative information 

(supplemental information) to 

determine whether a country performed 

satisfactorily in relation to its peers in 

a given category. There are elements of 

the criteria set out in the Act for which 

there is either limited quantitative 

information (e.g., rights of people with 

disabilities) or no well-developed 

performance indicator. Until such data 

and/or indicators are developed, the 

Board may rely on additional data and 

qualitative information to assess policy 

performance. For example, the State 

Department Human Rights Report 

contains qualitative information to make 

an assessment on a variety of criteria 

outlined by Congress, such as the rights 

of people with disabilities, the treatment 

of women and children, workers rights, 

and human rights. The Board may also 

consider whether any adjustments 

should be made for data gaps, lags, 

trends, or other weaknesses in particular 

indicators. For example, as additional 

information in the area of corruption, 

the Board may consider how a country 

scores on supplemental sources like 

Transparency International’s Corruption 

Perceptions Index and the Global 

Integrity Index, as well as on the 

defined indicator. 

Countries nearing the end of compact 

implementation may be considered for 

eligibility for a second compact. In 

determining eligibility for consecutive 

compacts, MCC recommends that the 

Board consider, among other factors, the 

country’s policy performance using the 

methodology and criteria described 

above, the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth 

in the country, and the country’s track 

record of performance implementing its 

first compact. 

Compact eligible country partners are 

expected to seek to maintain and 

improve policy performance. MCC 

recognizes that country partners may 

not meet the eligibility criteria from 

time to time due to a number of factors, 

such as changes in the peer-group 

median; graduation into a new income 

category (e.g., from low income to lower 

middle income); numerical declines that 

are within the margin of error; slight 

declines in policy performance; 

revisions or corrections of data; the 

introduction of new sub-data sources; or 

changes in the indicators used to 

measure performance. None of these 

factors alone signifies a significant 

policy reversal or warrants suspension 

or termination of eligibility and/or 

assistance. However, countries that 

demonstrate a significant policy reversal 

may be issued a warning, suspension, or 

termination of eligibility and/or 

assistance. According to MCC’s 

authorizing legislation, ‘‘[a]fter 

consultation with the Board, the Chief 

Executive Officer may suspend or 

terminate assistance in whole or in part 

for a country or entity * * * if * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
47622 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 

the country or entity has engaged in a 

pattern of actions inconsistent with the 

criteria used to determine the eligibility 

of the country or entity * * *.’’ Because 

of data lags, this pattern of behavior 

need not be captured in the indicators 

for MCC to take action. 

Relationship to Legislative Criteria 

Within each policy category, the Act 

sets out a number of specific selection 

criteria. As indicated above, a set of 

objective and quantifiable policy 

indicators is used to establish eligibility 

for MCA assistance and measure the 

relative performance by candidate 

countries against these criteria. The 

Board’s approach to determining 

eligibility ensures that performance 

against each of these criteria is assessed 

by at least one of the seventeen objective 

indicators. 

Most are addressed by multiple 

indicators. The specific indicators 

appear in parentheses below next to the 

corresponding criterion set out in the 

Act. 

Section 607(b)(1) Just and democratic 

governance, including a demonstrated 

commitment to: 

1. Promote political pluralism, 

equality and the rule of law (Political 

Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and 

Accountability, and Rule of Law); 

2. Respect human and civil rights, 

including the rights of people with 

disabilities (Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, and Voice and 

Accountability); 

3. Protect private property rights (Civil 

Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule of 

Law, and Land Rights and Access); 

4. Encourage transparency and 

accountability of government (Political 

Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and 

Accountability, Control of Corruption, 

Rule of Law, and Government 

Effectiveness); and 

5. Combat corruption (Political Rights, 

Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and Control 

of Corruption). 

Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, 

including a demonstrated commitment 

to economic policies that: 

1. Encourage citizens and firms to 

participate in global trade and 

international capital markets (Fiscal 

Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, Business 

Start-Up, and Regulatory Quality); 

2. Promote private sector growth 

(Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal 

Policy, Land Rights and Access, and 

Regulatory Quality); 

3. Strengthen market forces in the 

economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade 

Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights 

and Access, and Regulatory Quality); 

and 

4. Respect worker rights, including 

the right to form labor unions (Civil 

Liberties and Voice and Accountability). 

Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the 

people of such country, particularly 

women and children, including 

programs that: 

1. Promote broad-based primary 

education (Girls’ Primary Education 

Completion and Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education); 

2. Strengthen and build capacity to 

provide quality public health and 

reduce child mortality (Immunization 

Rates, Public Expenditure on Health, 

and Natural Resource Management); 

and 

3. Promote the protection of 

biodiversity and the transparent and 

sustainable management and use of 

natural resources (Natural Resource 

Management). 

Annex A to Report: Indicator 

Definitions 

The following 17 indicators will be 

used to measure candidate countries’ 

demonstrated commitment to the 

criteria found in section 607(b) of the 

Act. The indicators are intended to 

assess the degree to which the political 

and economic conditions in a country 

serve to promote broad-based 

sustainable economic growth and 

reduction of poverty; and thus provide 

a sound environment for the use of 

MCA funds. The indicators are not goals 

in themselves; rather they measure 

policies that are linked to broad-based 

sustainable economic growth. The 

indicators were selected based on their 

(i) relationship to economic growth and 

poverty reduction, (ii) the number of 

countries they cover, (iii) transparency 

and availability, and (iv) relative 

soundness and objectivity. Where 

possible, the indicators are developed 

by independent sources. 

Ruling Justly 

1. Civil Liberties: A panel of 

independent experts rates countries on 

freedom of expression; association and 

organizational rights; rule of law and 

human rights; and personal autonomy 

and economic rights. Source: Freedom 

House. 

2. Political Rights: A panel of 

independent experts rates countries on 

the prevalence of free and fair elections 

of officials with real power; the ability 

of citizens to form political parties that 

may compete fairly in elections; 

freedom from domination by the 

military, foreign powers, totalitarian 

parties, religious hierarchies and 

economic oligarchies; and the political 

rights of minority groups. Source: 

Freedom House. 

3. Voice and Accountability: An index 

of surveys/expert assessments that rates 

countries on: the ability of institutions 

to protect civil liberties; the extent to 

which citizens of a country are able to 

participate in the selection of 

governments; and the independence of 

the media. Source: World Bank Institute. 

4. Government Effectiveness: An 

index of surveys/expert assessments 

that rates countries on the quality of 

public service provision; civil servants’ 

competency and independence from 

political pressures; and the 

government’s ability to plan and 

implement sound policies. Source: 

World Bank Institute. 

5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys/ 

expert assessments that rates countries 

on the extent to which the public has 

confidence in and abides by the rules of 

society; the incidence of violent and 

nonviolent crime; the effectiveness, 

independence, and predictability of the 

judiciary; and the enforceability of 

contracts. Source: World Bank Institute. 

6. Control of Corruption: An index of 

surveys/expert assessments that rates 

countries on the frequency of 

‘‘additional payments to get things 

done;’’ the effects of corruption on the 

business environment; ‘‘grand 

corruption’’ in the political arena; and 

the tendency of elites to engage in ‘‘state 

capture.’’ Source: World Bank Institute. 

Encouraging Economic Freedom 

1. Inflation: The most recent average 

annual change in consumer prices. 

Source: The International Monetary 

Fund’s World Economic Outlook 

database. 

2. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget 

deficit divided by GDP, averaged over a 

three-year period. The data for this 

measure relies primarily on IMF country 

reports with input from U.S. missions in 

host countries, or is provided directly 

by the recipient government where 

public IMF data is outdated or 

unavailable. All data is cross-checked 

with the IMF’s World Economic 

Outlook database to try to ensure 

consistency across countries and made 

publicly available. Source: International 

Monetary Fund Country Reports, 

National Governments, and the 

International Monetary Fund’s World 

Economic Outlook database. 

3. Business Start-Up: An index that 

rates countries on the time and cost of 

complying with all procedures officially 

required for an entrepreneur to start up 

and formally operate an industrial or 

commercial business. Source: 

International Finance Corporation. 

4. Trade Policy: A measure of a 

country’s openness to international 

trade based on weighted average tariff 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 47623 

rates and non-tariff barriers to trade. 

Source: The Heritage Foundation. 

5. Regulatory Quality: An index of 

surveys/expert assessments that rates 

countries on the burden of regulations 

on business; price controls; the 

government’s role in the economy; 

foreign investment regulation; and many 

other areas. Source: World Bank 

Institute. 

6. Land Rights and Access: An index 

that rates countries on: The extent to 

which the institutional, legal, and 

market framework provide secure land 

tenure and equitable access to land in 

rural areas and the time and cost of 

property registration in urban and periurban areas. Source: The International 

Fund for Agricultural Development and 

the International Finance Corporation. 

Investing in People 

1. Public Expenditure on Health: 

Total expenditures on health by 

government at all levels divided by 

GDP. Source: The World Health 

Organization. 

2. Immunization Rates: The average of 

DPT3 and measles immunization rates 

for the most recent year available. 

Source: The World Health Organization. 

3. Total Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education: Total expenditures 

on primary education by government at 

all levels divided by GDP. Source: The 

United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization and National 

Governments. 

4. Girls’ Primary Completion Rate: 

The number of female students enrolled 

in the last grade of primary education 

minus repeaters divided by the 

population in the relevant age cohort. 

Source: United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

5. Natural Resource Management: An 

index made up of four indicators: Ecoregion protection, access to improved 

water, access to improved sanitation, 

and child (ages 1–4) mortality. Source: 

The Center for International Earth 

Science Information Network and the 

Yale Center for Environmental Law and 

Policy. 

[FR Doc. E9–22331 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Records Schedules; Availability and 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed records schedules; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) 

publishes notice at least once monthly 

of certain Federal agency requests for 

records disposition authority (records 

schedules). Once approved by NARA, 

records schedules provide mandatory 

instructions on what happens to records 

when no longer needed for current 

Government business. They authorize 

the preservation of records of 

continuing value in the National 

Archives of the United States and the 

destruction, after a specified period, of 

records lacking administrative, legal, 

research, or other value. Notice is 

published for records schedules in 

which agencies propose to destroy 

records not previously authorized for 

disposal or reduce the retention period 

of records already authorized for 

disposal. NARA invites public 

comments on such records schedules, as 

required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a). 

DATES: Requests for copies must be 

received in writing on or before October 

16, 2009. Once the appraisal of the 

records is completed, NARA will send 

a copy of the schedule. NARA staff 

usually prepare appraisal 

memorandums that contain additional 

information concerning the records 

covered by a proposed schedule. These, 

too, may be requested and will be 

provided once the appraisal is 

completed. Requesters will be given 30 

days to submit comments. 

ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of 

any records schedule identified in this 

notice by contacting the Life Cycle 

Management Division (NWML) using 

one of the following means: Mail: NARA (NWML), 8601 Adelphi 

Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001. E-mail: request.schedule@nara.gov. FAX: 301–837–3698. 

Requesters must cite the control 

number, which appears in parentheses 

after the name of the agency which 

submitted the schedule, and must 

provide a mailing address. Those who 

desire appraisal reports should so 

indicate in their request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurence Brewer, Director, Life Cycle 

Management Division (NWML), 

National Archives and Records 

Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, 

College Park, MD 20740–6001. 

Telephone: 301–837–1539. E-mail: 

records.mgt@nara.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year 

Federal agencies create billions of 

records on paper, film, magnetic tape, 

and other media. To control this 

accumulation, agency records managers 

prepare schedules proposing retention 

periods for records and submit these 

schedules for NARA’s approval, using 

the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for 

Records Disposition Authority. These 

schedules provide for the timely transfer 

into the National Archives of 

historically valuable records and 

authorize the disposal of all other 

records after the agency no longer needs 

them to conduct its business. Some 

schedules are comprehensive and cover 

all the records of an agency or one of its 

major subdivisions. Most schedules, 

however, cover records of only one 

office or program or a few series of 

records. Many of these update 

previously approved schedules, and 

some include records proposed as 

permanent. 

The schedules listed in this notice are 

media neutral unless specified 

otherwise. An item in a schedule is 

media neutral when the disposition 

instructions may be applied to records 

regardless of the medium in which the 

records are created and maintained. 

Items included in schedules submitted 

to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, 

are media neutral unless the item is 

limited to a specific medium. (See 36 

CFR 1228.24(b)(3).) 

No Federal records are authorized for 

destruction without the approval of the 

Archivist of the United States. This 

approval is granted only after a 

thorough consideration of their 

administrative use by the agency of 

origin, the rights of the Government and 

of private persons directly affected by 

the Government’s activities, and 

whether or not they have historical or 

other value. 

Besides identifying the Federal 

agencies and any subdivisions 

requesting disposition authority, this 

public notice lists the organizational 

unit(s) accumulating the records or 

indicates agencywide applicability in 

the case of schedules that cover records 

that may be accumulated throughout an 

agency. This notice provides the control 

number assigned to each schedule, the 

total number of schedule items, and the 

number of temporary items (the records 

proposed for destruction). It also 

includes a brief description of the 

temporary records. The records 

schedule itself contains a full 

description of the records at the file unit 

level as well as their disposition. If 

NARA staff has prepared an appraisal 

memorandum for the schedule, it too 

includes information about the records. 

Further information about the 

disposition process is available on 

request. 

Schedules Pending 

1. Department of Defense, Office of 

the Secretary (N1–330–09–5, 1 item, 1 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES