Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 64467 

1These income groups correspond to the 

definitions of low income countries and lower 

middle countries using the historical International 

Development Association (IDA) threshold 

published by the World Bank. MCC has used these 

categories to evaluate country performance since FY 

2004. Our amended statute no longer uses those 

definitions for funding purposes, but we continue 

to use them for evaluation purposes. 

Ypsilanti, Michigan 48198 (NSF 

Ypsilanti). OSHA staff performed an onsite review of NSF’s testing facilities at 

NSF Ypsilanti on May 3–4, 2023, in 

which assessors found some 

nonconformances with the requirements 

of 29 CFR 1910.7. NSF has addressed 

these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff 

preliminarily determined that OSHA 

should grant the application. 

OSHA published the preliminary 

notice announcing NSF’s expansion 

application in the Federal Register on 

August 16, 2023 (88 FR 55737). The 

agency requested comments by August 

31, 2023, but it received no comments 

in response to the notice. OSHA now is 

proceeding with this notice to grant 

expansion of NSF’s scope of 

recognition. 

To obtain or review copies of all 

public documents pertaining to the NSF 

expansion application, go to 

www.regulations/gov or contact the 

Docket Office at (202) 693–2350 (TTY 

(877) 889–5627. Docket No. OSHA– 

2006–0048 contains all materials in the 

record containing NSF’s recognition. 

II. Final Decision and Order 

OSHA staff examined NSF’s 

expansion application, conducted a 

detailed on-site assessment, and 

examined other pertinent information. 

Based on review of this evidence, OSHA 

finds that NSF meets the requirements 

of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of 

recognition, subject to the specified 

limitations and conditions. OSHA, 

therefore, is proceeding with this final 

notice to grant NSF’s scope of 

recognition. OSHA limits the expansion 

of NSF’s recognition to include the site 

at Ypsilanti, Michigan as listed above. 

OSHA’s recognition of the site limits 

NSF to performing product testing and 

certifications only to the test standards 

for which the site has the proper 

capability and programs, and for test 

standards in NSF’s scope of recognition. 

This limitation is consistent with the 

recognition that OSHA grants to other 

NRTLs that operate multiple sites. 

A. Conditions 

In addition to those conditions 

already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, NSF 

also must abide by the following 

conditions of the recognition: 

1. NSF must inform OSHA as soon as 

possible, in writing, of any change of 

ownership, facilities, or key personnel, 

and of any major change in its 

operations as a NRTL, and provide 

details of the change(s); 

2. NSF must meet all the terms of its 

recognition and comply with all OSHA 

policies pertaining to this recognition; 

and 

3. NSF must continue to meet the 

requirements for recognition, including 

all previously published conditions on 

NSF’s scope of recognition, in all areas 

for which it has recognition. 

OSHA hereby expands the NRTL 

scope of recognition for NSF to include 

one additional test site. 

III. Authority and Signature 

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, 

authorized the preparation of this 

notice. Accordingly, the agency is 

issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

8–2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), 

and 29 CFR 1910.7. 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

James S. Frederick, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20162 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 23–05] 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

Selection Criteria and Methodology 

Report for Fiscal Year 2024 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Millennium Challenge 

Act of 2003, as amended, requires the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation to 

publish a report that identifies the 

criteria and methodology that MCC 

intends to use to determine which 

candidate countries may be eligible to 

be considered for assistance under the 

Millennium Challenge Act for fiscal 

year 2024. The report is set forth in full 

below. 

(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(2)) 

Dated: September 13, 2023. 

Gina Porto Spiro, 

Acting Vice President, General Counsel, and 

Corporate Secretary. 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

Selection Criteria and Methodology 

Report for Fiscal Year 2024 

This document explains how the 

Board of Directors (the Board) of the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(MCC) will identify, evaluate, and select 

eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 

2024. Specifically, this document 

discusses the following: 

(I) Which countries MCC will evaluate 

(II) How the Board evaluates these countries 

A. Overall evaluation 

B. For selection of an eligible country for 

a first compact 

C. For selection of an eligible country for 

a subsequent compact 

D. For selection of an eligible country for 

a concurrent compact 

E. For threshold program assistance 

F. A note on potential transition to upper 

middle income country status after 

initial selection 

This report is provided in accordance 

with section 608(b) of the Millennium 

Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (the 

Act), as more fully described in 

Appendix A. 

(I) Which countries are evaluated? 

MCC evaluates the policy 

performance of all candidate countries 

and statutorily-prohibited countries by 

dividing them into two income 

categories for the purposes of creating 

‘‘scorecards.’’ These categories are used 

to account for the income bias that 

occurs when countries with more per 

capita resources perform better than 

countries with fewer. In FY 2024, those 

scorecard evaluation income categories 1

are: 

• Countries whose gross national 

income (GNI) per capita is $2,145 or 

less; and 

• Countries whose GNI per capita is 

between $2,146 and $4,465. 

Appendix B lists all candidate 

countries and statutorily-prohibited 

countries for scorecard evaluation 

purposes. 

(II) How does the Board evaluate these 

countries? 

A. Overall Evaluation 

The Board looks at three statutorilymandated factors when it evaluates any 

candidate country for compact 

eligibility: (1) policy performance; (2) 

the opportunity to reduce poverty and 

generate economic growth; and (3) the 

availability of MCC funds. 

(1) Policy Performance 

Appendix C describes all 20 

indicators, their definitions, what is 

required to ‘‘pass,’’ their source, and 

their relationship to the statutory 

criteria. Because of the importance of 

evaluating a country’s policy 

performance in a comparable, crossVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Sep 18, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM 19SEN1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
64468 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 

2A minimum score required to pass has been 

established for the immunization rates indicator 

only when the median score is above a 90 percent 

immunization rate. Countries must score above 90 

percent or the median for their scorecard income 

pool, whichever is lower, in order to pass the 

indicator. 

3For example: women; children; LGBTQI+ 

individuals; people with disabilities; and workers. 

country way, the Board relies to the 

maximum extent possible upon the bestavailable objective and quantifiable 

policy performance indicators. These 

indicators act as proxies for a country’s 

commitment to just and democratic 

governance, economic freedom, and 

investing in its people, per MCC’s 

founding statute. Comprised of 20 thirdparty indicators in the categories of 

ruling justly, encouraging economic 

freedom, and investing in people, MCC 

scorecards are created for all candidate 

countries and statutorily-prohibited 

countries. To ‘‘pass’’ most indicators on 

its scorecard, a country’s score on each 

indicator must be above the median 

score in its income group (as defined 

above for scorecard evaluation 

purposes). For the inflation, political 

rights, civil liberties, and immunization 

rates 2 indicators, however, MCC has 

established minimum or maximum 

scores for ‘‘passing.’’ In particular, the 

Board considers whether a country: 

• passed at least 10 of the 20 

indicators, with at least one pass in each 

of the three categories, 

• passed either the Political Rights or 

Civil Liberties indicator; and 

• passed the Control of Corruption 

indicator. 

While satisfaction of all three aspects 

means a country is termed to have 

‘‘passed’’ the scorecard, the Board also 

considers whether the country performs 

‘‘substantially worse’’ in any one policy 

category than it does on the scorecard 

overall. 

The mandatory passing of either the 

Political Rights or Civil Liberties 

indicators is called the Democratic 

Rights ‘‘hard hurdle’’ on the scorecard, 

while the mandatory passing of the 

Control of Corruption indicator is called 

the Control of Corruption ‘‘hard 

hurdle.’’ Not passing either ‘‘hard 

hurdle’’ results in not passing the 

scorecard overall, regardless of whether 

at least 10 of the 20 other indicators are 

passed. 

• Democratic Rights ‘‘hard hurdle:’’ 

This hurdle sets a minimum bar for 

democratic rights below which the 

Board will not consider a country for 

eligibility. Requiring that a country pass 

either the Political Rights or Civil 

Liberties indicator creates a democratic 

incentive for countries, recognizes the 

importance democracy plays in driving 

poverty-reducing economic growth, and 

holds MCC accountable to working with 

the best governed, poorest countries. 

When a candidate country is only 

passing one of the two indicators 

comprising the hurdle (instead of both), 

the Board will also closely examine why 

it is not passing the other indicator to 

understand what the score implies for 

the broader democratic environment 

and trajectory of the country. This 

examination will include consultation 

with both local and international civil 

society experts, among others. The 

hurdle is an important signal of the 

importance MCC places on democratic 

governance and the role of MCC 

programs in helping democracies 

deliver development results for their 

citizens—a democratic dividend. 

• Control of Corruption ‘‘hard 

hurdle:’’ Corruption in any country is an 

unacceptable tax on economic growth 

and an obstacle to the private sector 

investment needed to reduce poverty. 

Accordingly, MCC seeks out partner 

countries that are committed to 

combatting corruption. It is for this 

reason that MCC also has the Control of 

Corruption ‘‘hard hurdle,’’ which helps 

ensure that MCC is working with 

countries where there is relatively 

strong performance in controlling 

corruption. Requiring the passage of the 

indicator incentivizes countries to 

demonstrate a clear commitment to 

controlling corruption, and allows MCC 

to better understand the issue by seeing 

how the country performs relative to its 

peers and over time. 

Together, the 20 policy performance 

indicators are the predominant basis for 

determining which eligible countries 

will be selected for MCC assistance, and 

the Board expects a country to be 

passing its scorecard at the point the 

Board decides to select the country for 

a compact. The Board, however, also 

recognizes that even the best-available 

data has inherent challenges. Data gaps, 

real-time events versus data lags, the 

absence of narratives and nuanced 

detail, and other similar weaknesses 

affect each of these indicators. As such, 

the Board uses its judgment to interpret 

policy performance as measured by the 

scorecards. The Board may also consult 

other sources of information to enhance 

its understanding of the context 

underpinning a country’s policy 

performance beyond scorecard issues 

(e.g., specific policy issues related to 

trade, the treatment of civil society, 

other U.S. aid programs, financial sector 

performance, and security/foreign 

policy concerns). The Board uses its 

judgment on how best to weigh such 

information in assessing overall policy 

performance and making a final 

determination. 

(2) The Opportunity To Reduce Poverty 

and Generate Economic Growth 

While the Board considers a range of 

other information sources depending on 

the country, specific areas of attention 

typically include better understanding 

issues and trends in, and trajectory of: 

• the state of democratic and human 

rights (especially vulnerable groups 3); 

• civil society’s perspective on salient 

governance issues; 

• the control of corruption and rule of 

law; 

• the potential for the private sector 

(both local and foreign) to lead 

investment and growth; 

• poverty levels within a country; and 

• the country’s institutional capacity. 

Where applicable, the Board also 

considers MCC’s own experience and 

ability to reduce poverty and generate 

economic growth in a given country— 

such as considering MCC’s core areas of 

expertise and skills versus a country’s 

needs, and MCC’s capacity to work with 

a country. 

This information provides greater 

clarity on the likelihood that MCC 

programs will have an appreciable 

impact on reducing poverty by 

generating economic growth in a given 

country. The Board has used such 

information to better understand when 

a country’s performance on a particular 

indicator may not be up to date or is 

about to change. It has also used 

supplemental information to decline to 

select countries that are otherwise 

passing their scorecards. More details 

on this subject (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘supplemental information’’) can be 

found on MCC’s website: www.mcc.gov/ 

who-we-select/indicators. 

(3) The Availability of MCC Funds 

The final factor that the Board must 

consider when evaluating countries is 

the availability of funds. The agency’s 

budget is constrained, and often 

specifically limited, by provisions in the 

Act and in applicable appropriations 

acts. MCC has a continuous pipeline of 

countries in compact development, 

compact implementation, threshold 

programs, and program closure. 

Consequently, the Board factors in 

MCC’s overall portfolio when making its 

selection decisions given current and 

projected funding availability for each 

planned or existing program. 

* * * * * 

The following subsections describe 

how the Board applies each of these 

three statutorily-mandated factors: 

selection of countries for a compact, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 64469 

selection of countries for a subsequent 

compact, selection of countries for the 

threshold program, and selection of 

countries for a concurrent compact. A 

note follows on considerations for 

countries that might transition to upper 

middle income country status after 

initial selection. 

B. Evaluation for Selection of Eligible 

Countries for a First Compact 

When selecting eligible countries for 

a compact, the Board looks at all three 

statutorily-mandated aspects described 

in the previous section: (1) policy 

performance, first and foremost as 

measured by the scorecards and 

bolstered through supplemental 

information (as described in the 

previous section); (2) the opportunity to 

reduce poverty and generate economic 

growth, examined through the use of 

other supporting information (as 

described in the previous section); and 

(3) available funding. 

At a minimum, the Board considers 

whether a country passes its scorecard. 

It also examines supporting evidence 

that a country’s commitment to just and 

democratic governance, economic 

freedom, and investing in its people is 

on a sound footing and performance is 

on a positive trajectory (especially on 

the ‘‘hard hurdles’’ of Democratic Rights 

and Control of Corruption), and that 

MCC has the funds to support a 

meaningful compact with that country. 

Where applicable, previous threshold 

program information is also considered. 

For those countries currently 

developing or implementing a threshold 

program, the Board will examine the 

progress the country has made toward 

substantial implementation. 

The Board then weighs the 

information described above across each 

of the three dimensions. During the 

compact development period following 

initial selection, the Board reevaluates a 

selected country based on this same 

approach. 

C. Evaluation for Selection of Eligible 

Countries for a Subsequent Compact 

Section 609(l) of the Act authorizes 

MCC to enter into ‘‘one or more 

subsequent Compacts.’’ MCC does not 

consider the eligibility of a country for 

a subsequent compact, however, before 

the country has completed its compact 

or is within 18 months of compact end 

date. Selection for a subsequent 

compact is not automatic and is 

intended for countries that (1) exhibit 

successful performance on their 

previous compact(s); (2) exhibit 

improved scorecard policy performance 

during the partnership; and (3) exhibit 

a continued commitment to further their 

sector reform efforts in any subsequent 

partnership. As a result, the Board has 

an even higher standard when selecting 

countries for subsequent compacts. 

(1) Successful Implementation of the 

Previous Compact(s) 

To evaluate the previous compact’s 

success, the Board examines whether 

the compact succeeded within its 

budget and time limits, in particular by 

looking at three aspects: 

• The degree to which there is 

evidence of strong political will and 

management capacity: Is the 

partnership characterized by the 

country ensuring that both policy 

reforms and the compact program itself 

are both being implemented to the best 

of that country’s ability? 

• The degree to which the country 

has exhibited commitment and capacity 

to achieve program results: Are the 

financial and project results being 

achieved; to what degree is the country 

committing its own resources to ensure 

the compact is a success; to what extent 

is the private sector engaged (if 

relevant); and other compact-specific 

issues? 

• The degree to which the country 

has implemented the compact in 

accordance with MCC’s core policies 

and standards: Is the country adhering 

to MCC’s policies and procedures, 

including in critical areas such as: 

remediating unresolved claims of fraud, 

corruption, or abuse of funds; 

procurement; and monitoring and 

evaluation? 

Appendix D provides details on the 

specific information types examined 

and sources used in each of the three 

areas. Overall, the Board is looking for 

evidence that the previous compact(s) 

will be or has been completed on time 

and on budget, and that there is a 

commitment to continued, robust 

reform going forward. 

(2) Improved Scorecard Policy 

Performance 

The Board also expects the country to 

have improved its overall scorecard 

policy performance during the 

partnership, and to pass the scorecard in 

the year of selection for the subsequent 

compact. The Board focuses on the 

following: 

• The overall scorecard pass/fail rate 

over time, and what this suggests about 

underlying policy performance, as well 

as an examination of the underlying 

reasons; 

• The progress over time on policy 

areas measured by both hard-hurdle 

indicators—Democratic Rights and 

Control of Corruption—including an 

examination of the underlying reasons; 

and 

• Other indicator trajectories deemed 

relevant by the Board. 

In all cases, while the Board expects 

the country to be passing its scorecard, 

the Board also examines other sources 

of information to understand the nuance 

and reasons behind scorecard or 

indicator performance over time, 

including any real-time updates, 

methodological changes within the 

indicators themselves, shifts in the 

relevant candidate pool, or alternative 

policy performance perspectives (such 

as those gleaned through consultations 

with civil society and related 

stakeholders). The Board also consults 

other information sources to look at 

policy performance over time in areas 

not covered by the scorecard, but that 

the Board deemed to be important (such 

as trade and foreign policy concerns). 

(3) A Commitment to Further Sector 

Reform 

The Board expects that subsequent 

compacts will endeavor to tackle deeper 

policy reforms necessary to unlock an 

identified constraint to growth. 

Consequently, the Board considers 

MCC’s own experience during the 

previous compact in considering how 

committed the country is to reducing 

poverty and increasing economic 

growth, and tries to gauge the country’s 

commitment to further sector reform 

should it be selected for a subsequent 

compact. This includes: 

• Assessing the country’s delivery of 

policy reform during the previous 

compact (as described above); 

• Assessing expectations of the 

country’s ability and willingness to 

continue embarking on sector policy 

reform in a subsequent compact; 

• Examining both other information 

sources describing the opportunity to 

reduce poverty by generating growth (as 

outlined in A.2 above), and the prior 

compact’s relative success overall, as 

already discussed; and 

• Finally, considering how well 

funding can be leveraged for impact, 

given the country’s experience in the 

previous compact. 

* * * * * 

Through this overall approach to 

selection for a subsequent compact, the 

Board applies the three statutorilymandated evaluation criteria (policy 

performance, the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth, 

and available funds) in a way that 

assesses the previous partnership from a 

compact success standpoint, a 

commitment to improved scorecard 

policy performance standpoint, and a 

commitment to continued sector policy 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
64470 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 

reform standpoint. The Board then 

weighs all the information described 

above in making its decision. 

During the compact development 

period following initial selection, the 

Board reevaluates a selected country 

based on this same approach. 

D. Evaluation for Concurrent Compacts 

Section 609(k) of the Act authorizes 

MCC to enter into one additional 

concurrent compact with a country if 

one or both of the compacts with the 

country is for the purpose of regional 

economic integration, increased regional 

trade, or cross-border collaborations. 

The fundamental criteria and process 

for the selection of countries for such 

compacts remains the same as those for 

the selection of countries for nonconcurrent compacts: countries 

continue to be evaluated and selected 

individually, as described in sections 

II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F. 

Section 609(k) also requires as a 

precondition for a concurrent compact 

that the Board determine that the 

country is making ‘‘considerable and 

demonstrable progress in implementing 

the terms of the existing Compact and 

supplementary agreements thereto.’’ 

This statutory requirement is fully 

consistent with prior Board practice 

regarding the selection of a country for 

a non-concurrent compact. For a 

country where a concurrent compact is 

contemplated, the Board will take into 

account whether there is clear evidence 

of success, as relevant to the phase of 

the current compact. Among other 

information, the Board will examine the 

evaluation criteria described in Section 

II.C.1 above, notably: 

• The degree to which there is 

evidence of strong political will and 

management capacity; 

• The degree to which the country 

has exhibited 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. 

In addition to providing information 

to the Board so it can make its 

determination regarding the country’s 

progress in implementing its current 

compact, MCC will provide the Board 

with additional information relating to 

the potential for regional economic 

integration, increased regional trade, or 

cross-border collaborations for any 

country being considered for a 

concurrent compact. This information 

may include items such as: 

• The current state of a country’s 

regional integration, such as common 

financial and political dialogue 

frameworks, integration of productive 

value chains, and cross-border flows of 

people, goods, and services. 

• The current and potential level of 

trade between a country and its 

neighbors, including analysis of trade 

flows and unexploited potential for 

trade, and an assessment of the extent 

and significance of tariff and non-tariff 

barriers, including information 

regarding the patterns of trade. 

• The potential gains from crossborder cooperation between a country 

and its neighbors to alleviate bilateral 

and regional bottlenecks to economic 

growth and poverty reduction, such as 

through physical infrastructure or 

coordinated policy and institutional 

reforms. 

The Board can then weigh all 

information as a whole—the 

fundamental selection factors described 

in sections II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F, the 

information regarding implementation 

of the current compact, and any 

additional relevant information 

regarding potential regional 

integration—to determine whether or 

not to direct MCC to seek to enter into 

a concurrent compact with a country. 

E. Evaluation for Threshold Program 

Assistance 

The Board may also evaluate 

countries for participation in the 

threshold program. Threshold programs 

provide assistance to candidate 

countries exhibiting a significant 

commitment to meeting the criteria 

described in the previous subsections, 

but failing to meet such requirements. 

Specifically, in examining a candidate 

country’s policy performance, the 

opportunity to reduce poverty and 

generate economic growth, and 

available funds, the Board will consider 

whether a country appears to be on a 

trajectory to becoming viable for 

compact eligibility in the medium or 

short term. 

F. A Note on Potential Transition to 

Upper Middle Income Country (UMIC) 

Status After Initial Selection 

Some candidate countries may have a 

high per capita income or a high growth 

rate that implies there is a chance they 

could transition to UMIC status during 

the life of an MCC partnership. It is not 

possible to accurately predict if or when 

such a transition may occur. 

Nonetheless, such countries may have 

more resources at their disposal for 

funding their own growth and poverty 

reduction strategies. As a result, in 

addition to using the regular selection 

criteria described in the previous 

sections, the Board will use its 

discretion to assess both the need and 

the opportunity presented by partnering 

with such a country, in order to ensure 

that MCC’s scarce grant funds are 

directed appropriately. 

Specifically, if a candidate country 

with a high probability of transitioning 

to UMIC status is under consideration 

for selection, the Board will examine 

additional data and information related 

to the following: 

• Whether the country faces 

significant challenges accessing other 

sources of development financing (such 

as international capital, domestic 

resources, and other donor assistance) 

and, if so, whether MCC grant financing 

would be an appropriate tool; 

• Whether the nature of poverty in 

the country (for example, high 

inequality or poverty headcount ratios 

relative to peer countries) presents a 

clear and strategic opportunity for MCC 

to assist the country in reducing such 

poverty through projects that spur 

economic growth; 

• Whether the country demonstrates 

particularly strong policy performance, 

including policies and actions that 

demonstrate a clear priority on poverty 

reduction; and 

• Whether MCC can reasonably 

expect that the country would 

contribute a significant amount of 

funding to the compact. 

These additional criteria would then 

be applied in any additional years of 

selection as the country continues to 

develop its compact. Should a country 

eventually transition to UMIC status 

during compact development, it would 

no longer be a candidate for selection 

for that fiscal year. Continuing compact 

development beyond that point would 

then be at the Board’s discretion. 

Appendix A: Statutory Basis for This 

Report 

This report to Congress is provided in 

accordance with section 608(b) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as 

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

Section 605 of the Act authorizes the 

provision of assistance to countries that enter 

into a Millennium Challenge Compact with 

the United States to support policies and 

programs that advance the progress of such 

countries in achieving lasting economic 

growth and poverty reduction. The Act 

requires MCC to take a number of steps in 

selecting countries for compact assistance for 

FY 2024 based on the countries’ 

demonstrated commitment to just and 

democratic governance, economic freedom, 

and investing in their people, MCC’s 

opportunity to reduce poverty and generate 

economic growth in the country, and the 

availability of funds. These steps include the 

submission of reports to the congressional 

committees specified in the Act and 

publication of information in the Federal 

Register that identify: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 64471 

4Note that, should events that began in July 2023 

in Niger be assessed to trigger restrictions on foreign 

assistance pursuant to the military coup restriction 

in section 7008 of the FY 2023 SFOAA, Niger will 

not be a candidate country. 

(1) The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for assistance for FY 2024 based 

on per capita income levels and eligibility to 

receive assistance under U.S. law (section 

608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a)); 

(2) The criteria and methodology that 

MCC’s Board of Directors (Board) will use to 

measure and evaluate 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 ‘‘eligible 

countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act; 22 

U.S.C. 7707(b)); and 

(3) The list of countries determined by the 

Board to be ‘‘eligible countries’’ for FY 2024, 

with justification for eligibility determination 

and selection for compact negotiation, 

including those eligible countries with which 

MCC will seek to enter into compacts 

(section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)). 

This report satisfies item 2 above. 

Appendix B: Lists of All Candidate 

Countries and Statutorily-Prohibited 

Countries for Evaluation Purposes 

Income Groups for Scorecards 

Since MCC was created, it has relied on the 

World Bank’s gross national income (GNI) 

per capita income data (Atlas method) and 

the historical ceiling for eligibility as set by 

the World Bank’s International Development 

Association (IDA) to divide countries into 

two income categories for purposes of 

creating scorecards. These categories are used 

to account for the income bias that occurs 

when countries with more per capita 

resources perform better than countries with 

fewer. Using the historical IDA eligibility 

ceiling for the scorecard evaluation groups 

ensures that the poorest countries compete 

with their income level peers and are not 

compared against countries with more 

resources to mobilize. 

MCC will continue to use the historical 

IDA classifications for eligibility to categorize 

countries in two groups for purposes of FY 

2024 scorecard comparisons: 

• Countries with GNI per capita equal to 

or less than IDA’s historical ceiling for 

eligibility (i.e., $2,145 for FY 2024); and 

• Countries with GNI per capita above 

IDA’s historical ceiling for eligibility but 

below the World Bank’s upper middle 

income country threshold (i.e., $2,146 and 

$4,465 for FY 2024). 

The list of countries for FY 2024 scorecard 

assessments is set forth below: 

Countries With GNI per Capita of $2,145 or 

Less 

1. Afghanistan 

2. Angola 

3. Benin 

4. Burkina Faso 

5. Burundi 

6. Cambodia 

7. Cameroon 

8. Central African Republic 

9. Chad 

10. Comoros 

11. Congo, Democratic Republic of the 

12. Congo, Republic of 

13. Eritrea 

14. Ethiopia 

15. Gambia, The 

16. Guinea 

17. Guinea-Bissau 

18. Haiti 

19. Korea, North 

20. Kyrgyzstan 

21. Lesotho 

22. Liberia 

23. Madagascar 

24. Malawi 

25. Mali 

26. Mozambique 

27. Myanmar 

28. Nepal 

29. Nicaragua 

30. Niger 4

31. Nigeria 

32. Pakistan 

33. Rwanda 

34. Senegal 

35. Sierra Leone 

36. Somalia 

37. South Sudan 

38. Sudan 

39. Syria 

40. Tajikistan 

41. Tanzania 

42. Timor-Leste 

43. Togo 

44. Uganda 

45. Yemen 

46. Zambia 

47. Zimbabwe 

Countries With GNI per Capita Between 

$2,146 and $4,465 

1. Algeria 

2. Bangladesh 

3. Bhutan 

4. Bolivia 

5. Cabo Verde 

6. Cote d’Ivoire 

7. Djibouti 

8. Egypt 

9. Eswatini 

10. Ghana 

11. Honduras 

12. India 

13. Iran 

14. Jordan 

15. Kenya 

16. Kiribati 

17. Laos 

18. Lebanon 

19. Mauritania 

20. Micronesia, Federated States of 

21. Mongolia 

22. Morocco 

23. Papua New Guinea 

24. Philippines 

25. Samoa 

26. Sao Tome and Principe 

27. Solomon Islands 

28. Sri Lanka 

29. Tunisia 

30. Ukraine 

31. Uzbekistan 

32. Vanuatu 

33. Vietnam 

Statutorily-Prohibited Countries 

1. Burkina Faso 

2. Burma 

3. Cambodia 

4. Eritrea 

5. Guinea 

6. Haiti 

7. Iran 

8. Korea, North 

9. Mali 

10. Nicaragua 

11. South Sudan 

12. Sri Lanka 

13. Sudan 

14. Syria 

15. Zimbabwe 

Appendix C: Indicator Definitions 

The following 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 

MCC funds. The indicators are not goals in 

themselves; rather, they are proxy measures 

of policies that are linked to broad-based 

sustainable economic growth. The indicators 

were selected based on (i) their 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. Listed below is a brief 

summary of the indicators (a detailed 

rationale for the adoption of these indicators 

can be found in the public Guide to the 

Indicators on MCC’s website at 

www.mcc.gov/who-we-select/indicators). 

Ruling Justly 

1. Political Rights: Independent experts 

rate countries on the prevalence of free and 

fair electoral processes; political pluralism 

and participation of all stakeholders; 

government accountability and transparency; 

freedom from domination by the military, 

foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious 

hierarchies and economic oligarchies; and 

the political rights of minority groups, among 

other things. Pass: Score must be above the 

minimum score of 17 out of 40. Source: 

Freedom House 

2. Civil Liberties: Independent experts rate 

countries on freedom of expression and 

belief; association and organizational rights; 

rule of law and human rights; and personal 

autonomy and economic rights, among other 

things. Pass: Score must be above the 

minimum score of 25 out of 60. Source: 

Freedom House 

3. Freedom of Information: Measures the 

legal and practical steps taken by a 

government to enable or allow information to 

move freely through society; this includes 

measures of press freedom, national freedom 

of information laws, and the extent to which 

a county is shutting down social media or the 

internet. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for the income group. Source: 

Reporters Without Borders/Access Now/ 

Centre for Law and Democracy. 

4. Government Effectiveness: An index of 

surveys and expert assessments that rate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
64472 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 

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, among other 

things. Pass: Score must be above the median 

score for the income group. Source: 

Worldwide Governance Indicators (World 

Bank/Brookings) 

5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys and 

expert assessments that rate countries on the 

extent to which the public has confidence in 

and abides by the rules of society; the 

incidence and impact of violent and 

nonviolent crime; the effectiveness, 

independence, and predictability of the 

judiciary; the protection of property rights; 

and the enforceability of contracts, among 

other things. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for the income group. Source: 

Worldwide Governance Indicators (World 

Bank/Brookings) 

6. Control of Corruption: An index of 

surveys and expert assessments that rate 

countries on: ‘‘grand corruption’’ in the 

political arena; the frequency of petty 

corruption; the effects of corruption on the 

business environment; and the tendency of 

elites to engage in ‘‘state capture,’’ among 

other things. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for the income group. Source: 

Worldwide Governance Indicators (World 

Bank/Brookings) 

Encouraging Economic Freedom 

1. Fiscal Policy: General government net 

lending/borrowing as a percent of gross 

domestic product (GDP), averaged over a 

three-year period. Net lending/borrowing is 

calculated as revenue minus total 

expenditure. The data for this measure comes 

from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook. 

Pass: Score must be above the median score 

for the income group. Source: The 

International Monetary Fund’s World 

Economic Outlook Database 

2. Inflation: The most recent average 

annual change in consumer prices. Pass: 

Score must be 15 percent or less. Source: The 

International Monetary Fund’s World 

Economic Outlook Database 

3. Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys 

and expert assessments that rate countries on 

the burden of regulations on business; price 

controls; the government’s role in the 

economy; and foreign investment regulation, 

among other areas. Pass: Score must be above 

the median score for the income group. 

Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators 

(World Bank/Brookings) 

4. Trade Policy: A measure of a country’s 

openness to international trade based on 

weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff 

barriers to trade. Pass: Score must be above 

the median score for the income group. 

Source: The Heritage Foundation 

5. Gender in the Economy: An index that 

measures the extent to which laws provide 

men and women equal capacity to generate 

income or participate in the economy, 

including factors such as the capacity to 

access institutions, get a job, register a 

business, sign a contract, open a bank 

account, choose where to live, to travel 

freely, property rights protections, 

protections against domestic violence, and 

child marriage, among others. Pass: Score 

must be above the median score for the 

income group. Source: Women, Business, 

and the Law (World Bank) and the WORLD 

Policy Analysis Center (UCLA) 

6. Land Rights and Access: An index that 

rates countries on the extent to which the 

institutional, legal, and market framework 

provides secure land tenure and equitable 

access to land in rural areas and the extent 

to which men and women have the right to 

private property in practice and in law. Pass: 

Score must be above the median score for the 

income group. Source: The International 

Fund for Agricultural Development and 

Varieties of Democracy Index 

7. Access to Credit: An index that ranks 

countries based on access and use of formal 

and informal financial services as measured 

by the number of bank branches and ATMs 

per 100,000 adults and the share of adults 

that have an account at a formal or informal 

financial institution. Pass: Score must be 

above the median score for the income group. 

Source: Financial Development Index 

(International Monetary Fund) and Findex 

(World Bank) 

8. Equal Employment Opportunity: 

Measures a country government’s 

commitment to ending slavery and forced 

labor, preventing employment 

discrimination, and protecting the rights of 

workers and people with disabilities. Pass: 

Score must be above the median score for the 

income group. Sources: Varieties of 

Democracy Institute and WORLD Policy 

Analysis Center (UCLA). 

Investing in People 

1. Health Expenditures: Total current 

expenditures on health by government 

(excluding funding sourced from external 

donors) at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: 

Score must be above the median score for the 

income group. Source: The World Health 

Organization 

2. Education Expenditures: Total 

expenditures on education by government at 

all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must 

be above the median score for the income 

group. Source: The United Nations 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization and National Governments 

3. Natural Resource Protection: Assesses a 

country government’s commitment to 

preserving biodiversity and natural habitats, 

responsibly managing ecosystems and 

fisheries, and engaging in sustainable 

agriculture. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for the income group. Source: 

Yale Center for Environmental Law and 

Policy 

4. Immunization Rates: The average of 

DPT3 and measles immunization coverage 

rates for the most recent year available. Pass: 

Score must be above either the median score 

for the income group or 90 percent, 

whichever is lower. Source: The World 

Health Organization and the United Nations 

Children’s Fund 

5. Girls Education: 

a. 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 (gross intake ratio in the 

last grade of primary). Countries with a GNI/ 

capita of $2,145 or less are assessed on this 

indicator. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for the income group. Source: 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization 

b. Girls’ Lower Secondary Completion Rate: 

The number of female pupils that have 

completed the last grade of lower secondary 

education divided by the population within 

three to five years of the intended age of 

completion, expressed as a percentage of the 

total population of females in the same age 

group. Countries with a GNI/capita between 

$2,146 and $4,465 are assessed on this 

indicator instead of Girls’ Primary 

Completion Rates. Pass: Score must be above 

the median score for the income group. 

Source: United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization 

6. Child Health: An index made up of three 

indicators: (i) access to improved water, (ii) 

access to improved sanitation, and (iii) child 

(ages 1–4) mortality. Pass: Score must be 

above the median score for the income group. 

Source: The Center for International Earth 

Science Information Network and the Yale 

Center for Environmental Law and Policy 

Relationship to Statutory Criteria 

Within each policy category, the Act sets 

out a number of specific selection criteria. A 

set of objective and quantifiable policy 

indicators is used to inform eligibility 

decisions for assistance and to 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 objective 

indicators. Most are addressed by multiple 

indicators. The specific indicators appear in 

parentheses next to the corresponding 

criterion set out in the Act. 

Section 607(b)(1): Just and Democratic 

Governance, Including a Demonstrated 

Commitment to— 

(A) promote political pluralism, equality 

and the rule of law (Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, Rule of Law, and Gender in the 

Economy); 

(B) respect human and civil rights, 

including the rights of people with 

disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, 

Equal Employment Opportunity, and 

Freedom of Information); 

(C) protect private property rights (Civil 

Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, 

and Land Rights and Access); 

(D) encourage transparency and 

accountability of government (Political 

Rights, Civil Liberties, Freedom of 

Information, Control of Corruption, Rule of 

Law, and Government Effectiveness, Equal 

Employment Opportunity); 

(E) combat corruption (Political Rights, 

Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, Freedom of 

Information, and Control of Corruption); and 

(F) the quality of the civil society enabling 

environment (Civil Liberties, Freedom of 

Information, Equal Employment 

Opportunity, and Rule of Law) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 64473 

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

Including a Demonstrated Commitment to 

Economic Policies That— 

(A) encourage citizens and firms to 

participate in global trade and international 

capital markets (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, 

Trade Policy, and Regulatory Quality); 

(B) promote private sector growth 

(Inflation, Fiscal Policy, Land Rights and 

Access, Access to Credit, Gender in the 

Economy, and Regulatory Quality); 

(C) strengthen market forces in the 

economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade 

Policy, Land Rights and Access, Access to 

Credit, and Regulatory Quality); and 

(D) respect worker rights, including the 

right to form labor unions (Equal 

Employment Opportunity, Civil Liberties, and 

Gender in the Economy) 

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

of Such Country, Particularly Women and 

Children, Including Programs That— 

(A) promote broad-based primary 

education (Girls’ Primary Completion Rate, 

Girls’ Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, 

Total Public Expenditure on Primary 

Education, and Equal Employment 

Opportunity); 

(B) strengthen and build capacity to 

provide quality public health and reduce 

child mortality (Immunization Rates, Public 

Expenditure on Health, and Child Health); 

and 

(C) promote the protection of biodiversity 

and the transparent and sustainable 

management and use of natural resources 

(Natural Resource Protection). 

Appendix D: Subsequent and 

Concurrent Compact Considerations 

MCC reporting and data in the following 

chart are used to assess threshold program 

performance, compact performance of MCC 

compact countries nearing the end of 

compact implementation (i.e., within 18 

months of compact end date), or for current 

MCC compact countries under consideration 

for a concurrent compact, where appropriate. 

Some reporting used for assessment may 

contain sensitive information and adversely 

affect implementation or MCC-partner 

country relations. This information is for 

MCC’s internal use and is not made public. 

However, key implementation information is 

summarized in compact status and results 

reports that are published quarterly on MCC’s 

website under MCC country programs 

(www.mcc.gov/where-we-work) or monitoring 

and evaluation (www.mcc.gov/our-impact/mand-e) web pages. 

For completed compacts, additional 

information is used to assess compact 

performance and is found in a country’s Star 

Report. The Star Report and its associated 

quarterly business process capture key 

information to provide a framework for 

results and improve the ability to 

disseminate learning and evidence 

throughout the lifecycle of an MCC 

investment from selection to final evaluation. 

For each compact and threshold program, 

evidence is collected on performance 

indicators, evaluation results, partnerships, 

sustainability efforts, and learning, among 

other elements. 

In addition to the Star Reports, MCC also 

surveys staff on topics related to the quality 

of the partnership during design and 

implementation of programs, progress toward 

program results, a partner country’s 

commitment to undertaking policy and 

institutional reforms, and compliance with 

MCC standards. Additional information on 

the survey can be found in the Guide to the 

Program Surveys: https://www.mcc.gov/ 

resources/doc/guide-to-program-surveysfy23. 

Topic MCC reporting/data source Published documents 

COUNTRY PARTNERSHIP 

Political Will 

• Status of major conditions precedent 

• Program oversight/implementation 

Æ project restructures 

Æ partner response to accountable entity capacity 

issues 

• Political independence of the accountable entity 

• Quarterly implementation reporting 

• Quarterly results reporting 

• MCC Star Reports 

• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of Key Performance Indicators’’ (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/our-impact/m-and-e. 

• Star Reports (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/resources?fwp_resource_type=star-report. 

Management Capacity 

• Project management capacity 

• Project performance 

• Level of MCC intervention/oversight 

• Relative level of resources required 

PROGRAM RESULTS 

Financial Results 

• Commitments—including contributions to compact and 

threshold funding 

• Disbursements 

Project Results 

• Output, outcome, objective targets 

• Accountable entity commitment to ‘focus on results’ 

• Accountable entity cooperation on impact evaluation 

• Indicator tracking tables 

• Quarterly financial reporting 

• Quarterly implementation reporting 

• Quarterly results reporting 

• Impact evaluations 

• MCC Star Reports 

• Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (available by country): 

https://www.mcc.gov/our-impact/m-and-e. 

• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of Key Performance Indicators’’ (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/our-impact/m-and-e. 

• Star Reports (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/resources?fwp_resource_type=star-report. 

• Percent complete for process/outputs 

• Relevant outcome data 

• Details behind target delays 

Target Achievements 

ADHERENCE TO STANDARDS 

• Procurement 

• Environmental and social 

• Fraud and corruption 

• Program closure 

• Monitoring and evaluation 

• All other legal provisions 

• Audits (GAO and OIG) 

• Quarterly implementation reporting 

• MCC Star Reports 

• Published OIG and GAO audits. 

• Star Reports (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/resources?fwp_resource_type=star-report. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
64474 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 

Topic MCC reporting/data source Published documents 

COUNTRY SPECIFIC 

Sustainability 

• Implementation entity 

• MCC investments 

Role of private sector or other donors 

• Other relevant investors/investments 

• Other donors/programming 

• Status of related reforms 

• Trajectory of private sector involvement going forward 

• Quarterly implementation reporting 

• Quarterly results reporting 

• MCC Star Reports 

• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of Key Performance Indicators’’ (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/our-impact/m-and-e. 

• Star Reports (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/resources?fwp_resource_type=star-report. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20163 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, 

September 21, 2023. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7B, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must 

use Diagonal Road Entrance), 

Alexandria, VA 22314–3428. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Board Briefing, Share Insurance 

Fund Quarterly Report. 

2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, 

Financial Innovation—Loan 

Participation, Eligible Obligations, and 

Notes of Liquidating Credit Unions. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of 

the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6304. 

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20300 Filed 9–15–23; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

National Endowment for the Arts 

2023 Tribal Consultation 

AGENCY: National Endowment for the 

Arts. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for 

the Arts will conduct a Tribal 

Consultation at the 2023 International 

Conference of Indigenous Tribal 

Archives, Libraries, and Museums in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on 

Wednesday, October 25, 2023, 2:30–3:30 

p.m. CDT. 

DATES: The 2023 Tribal Consultation 

will take place on October 25, 2023, 

2:30–3:30 p.m. CDT. Tribal leaders 

wishing to send a proxy to the 

consultation session should send 

notification to the email address listed 

in the address section below by October 

18, 2023. If neither a tribal leader nor a 

proxy is able to attend this consultation 

session, please provide written 

comments to the email address listed in 

the address section below by November 

15, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Please RSVP for this 

meeting by emailing NativeArts@

arts.gov. Proxy notifications and written 

comments may also be sent to 

NativeArts@arts.gov by the dates listed 

above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The agenda is as follows: 

1. NEA Resources 

a. The NEA, established by Congress 

in 1965, is an independent Federal 

agency that is the largest funder of the 

arts and arts education in communities 

nationwide and a catalyst of public and 

private support for the arts. By 

advancing equitable opportunities for 

arts participation and practice, the NEA 

fosters and sustains an environment in 

which the arts benefit everyone in the 

United States. This is accomplished 

primarily by providing resources to 

support the creative lives of all 

communities in the United States. 

Grants are awarded for specific projects 

to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, 

federally recognized Tribes, or units of 

State or local government. Individual 

makers, artists, and culture bearers are 

recognized and supported through 

programs such as the National Heritage 

Fellowship, Jazz Masters, and Creative 

Writing Fellowships. Forty percent of 

the NEA’s program budget is granted to 

State Arts Agencies and Regional Arts 

Organizations, which make subgrants to 

support additional arts activities across 

the nation. 

i. What is your awareness of our 

agency’s work? 

ii. Have NEA resources impacted your 

community? If so, how? 

iii. To what extent do you see the arts 

and cultural activities of your tribal 

community reflected in the resources 

we offer? 

iv. The review criteria for our primary 

grant program, Grants for Arts Projects, 

includes artistic excellence, which is 

defined as ‘‘The quality of the artists 

and other key individuals, creative 

process, works of art, organizations, arts 

education providers, artistic partners, 

and/or services involved in the project 

and their relevance to the audience or 

communities the project aims to serve.’’ 

How does this definition of artistic 

excellence resonate with the artistic and 

cultural activities of your tribal 

community? 

2. Tribal Engagement 

a. In recent years, the NEA has made 

grants to Tribal governments and Tribal 

Colleges & Universities (TCUs). We also 

have recognized Indigenous artists with 

National Heritage Fellowships. These 

direct grants to Tribes, Tribal citizens, 

and TCUs are in addition to the grants 

we make to Native-serving nonprofits. 

i. How can the NEA expand on this 

engagement with tribes and increase 

awareness of these opportunities? 

ii. If the NEA has the resources to 

send staff representation to in-person 

events, where would our participation 

be most effective? 

b. The NEA annually updates the 

Federal Resources for Native Arts & 

Cultural Activities, which is a 

consolidation of opportunities offered 

by federal agencies for organizations 

looking for funding and other resources 

to support Native arts and cultural 

activities. 

i. Have you ever accessed this 

publication? 

ii. Is this publication a useful resource 

to make available to tribal communities? 

iii. How can we increase awareness of 

this resource guide? 

3. Partnerships With Tribal-Serving 

Organizations 

a. Tribal Arts Councils: At the last 

NEA Tribal Consultation session, the 

NEA discussed the possibility of 

supporting the work of Tribal Arts 

Councils, bodies organized to support 

arts and cultural activities at the 

regional level by providing programs 

and support services. These Tribal Arts 

Councils could be similar in form to 

State, regional or local Arts agencies, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1