19360 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

1The changes to the Act enacted in the 

Appropriations Act only apply to the FY 2012 

selection process. The relevant language would 

need to be included in next year’s appropriations 

during rulemaking and during the 

effective period of the regulation while 

respecting the copyright associated with 

the standard? 

• What are the best practices for 

incorporating standards by reference in 

regulation while respecting the 

copyright associated with the standard? 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and 

Cost-Benefit Analysis. Standards 

developing bodies, including not-forprofit organizations, use a variety of 

cost-recovery models as part of their 

overall way of doing business. OMB 

believes that it may be helpful for the 

purposes of the Circular and for the 

evaluation of costs and benefits of 

significant regulatory actions pursuant 

to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

for Federal agencies to have a basic 

understanding of the costs associated 

with the development of private sector 

standards, in addition to the purchase 

costs of standards. Similarly, agencies 

and the public should have an 

understanding of the overall resources 

and costs that would be involved if 

Federal agencies were to develop 

government-unique standards. Both of 

these can be elements in determining 

when it is practical or impractical to 

incorporate a voluntary standard into 

regulation or otherwise adopt a standard 

in the course of carrying out an agency’s 

mission, as compared to developing a 

government-unique standard. 

• What resource and other costs are 

involved in the development and 

revision of voluntary standards? 

• What economic and other factors 

should agencies take into consideration 

when determining that the use of a 

voluntary standard is practical for 

regulatory or other mission purposes? 

• How often do standards-developing 

bodies review and subsequently update 

standards? If standards are already 

incorporated by reference in regulations, 

do such bodies have mechanisms in 

place for alerting the relevant agencies 

and the public, especially in regard to 

the significance of the changes in the 

standards? 

Using and Updating Standards in 

Regulation. Federal agencies have 

adopted various methods of using 

standards as a basis for regulation. They 

have also developed different 

approaches to updating standards that 

have been referenced or incorporated in 

regulations. 

• Should OMB set out best practices 

on how to reference/incorporate 

standards (or the relevant parts) in 

regulation? If so, what are the best 

means for doing so? Are the best means 

of reference/incorporation contextspecific? Are there instances where 

incorporating a standard or part thereof 

into a regulation is preferable to 

referencing a standard in regulation (or 

vice versa)? 

• Should an OMB supplement to the 

Circular set out best practices for 

updating standards referenced in 

regulation as standards are revised? If 

so, what updating practices have 

worked well and which ones have not? 

OMB recognizes that changes in 

technology and the need for innovation 

can result in the updating of private 

sector standards in a turn-around time 

of two years or even less. Where such 

standards are already incorporated into 

regulations, these changes can suggest a 

need to update the relevant regulations 

as well and, in some cases, can result in 

a need for regulated entities to purchase 

the newly updated standards on a fairly 

routine basis. In addition to the costs 

associated with the continuing purchase 

of such standards, rapid update cycles 

may make it difficult for the regulated 

public to understand the nature and 

significance of the changing regulations. 

• Is there a role for OMB in providing 

guidance on how Federal agencies can 

best manage the need for relevant 

regulations in the face of changing 

standards? 

• How should agencies determine the 

cost-effectiveness of issuing updated 

regulations in response to updated 

standards? 

• Do agencies consult sufficiently 

with private sector standards bodies 

when considering the update of 

regulations that incorporate voluntary 

standards, especially when such 

standards may be updated on a regular 

basis? 

Use of More Than One Standard or 

Conformity Assessment Procedure in a 

Regulation or Procurement Solicitation. 

OMB recognizes that, in some instances, 

it may be best, in terms of economic 

activity, if a regulation or procurement 

solicitation sets out a requirement that 

can be met by more than one standard 

and more than one conformity 

assessment procedure. In some cases, 

however, allowing the use of more than 

one standard or conformity assessment 

procedure may not be possible or meet 

the regulatory or procurement objective. 

For example, doing so may be precluded 

by statute, and an alternate standard or 

conformity assessment procedure may 

not provide an equivalent level of 

protection as the standard or conformity 

assessment procedure selected by the 

regulator. 

• Should OMB provide guidance to 

agencies on when it is appropriate to 

allow the use of more than one standard 

or more than one conformity assessment 

procedure to demonstrate conformity 

with regulatory requirements or 

solicitation provisions? 

• Where an agency is requested by 

stakeholders to consider allowing the 

demonstration of conformity to another 

country’s standard or the use of an 

alternate conformity assessment 

procedure as adequate to fulfilling U.S. 

requirements, should OMB provide 

guidance to agencies on how to consider 

such requests? 

Other Developments 

• Have there been any developments 

internationally—including but not 

limited to U.S. regulatory cooperation 

initiatives—since the publication of 

Circular A–119 that OMB should take 

into account in developing a possible 

supplement to the Circular? 

• Does the significant role played by 

consortia today in standards 

development in some technology areas 

have any bearing on (or specific 

implications for) Federal participation? 

• Are there other issues not set out 

above that OMB might usefully seek to 

address in a supplement? 

Cass Sunstein, 

Administrator, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7602 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC 12–04] 

Report on Countries That Are 

Candidates for Millennium Challenge 

Account Eligibility in Fiscal Year 2012 

and Countries That Would Be 

Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Section 608(d) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the 

‘‘Act’’) requires the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation to publish a 

report that identifies countries that are 

‘‘candidate countries’’ for Millennium 

Challenge Account assistance during FY 

2012. In December 2011, Congress 

enacted changes in MCC’s FY 2012 

appropriation that redefined candidate 

countries for FY 2012 as part of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–74) (the ‘‘Appropriations 

Act’’).1 While this does not affect the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19361 

act or in an amendment to the Act in order for these 

changes to continue beyond FY 2012. 

2The changes to the Act enacted in the 

Appropriations Act only apply to the FY 2012 

selection process. The relevant language would 

need to be included in next year’s appropriations 

act or in an amendment to the Act in order for these 

changes to continue beyond FY 2012. 

compact or threshold program eligibility 

decisions made at the December 2011 

MCC Board meeting, it does alter the 

income classification of some candidate 

countries. As such, it is necessary for 

MCC to revise its FY 2012 Candidate 

Country Report. This revised report 

incorporates the new definitions and the 

subsequent reclassification of countries. 

The report is set forth in full below and 

updates the report published November 

8, 2011 (76 FR 69291). 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Melvin F. Williams, Jr., 

VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

Report on Countries That Are 

Candidates for Millennium Challenge 

Account Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2012 

and Countries That Would Be 

Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions 

Summary 

This report to Congress is provided in 

accordance with section 608(a) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as 

amended, 22 U.S.C. 7701, 7707(a) (the 

‘‘Act’’). The Act authorizes the 

provision of Millennium Challenge 

Account (MCA) assistance for countries 

that enter into a Millennium Challenge 

Compact with the United States to 

support policies and programs that 

advance the progress of such countries 

to achieve lasting economic growth and 

poverty reduction. The Act requires the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(MCC) to take a number of steps in 

selecting countries with which MCC 

will seek to enter into a compact, 

including (a) determining the countries 

that will be eligible for MCA assistance 

for fiscal year 2012 (FY 2012) based on 

a country’s demonstrated commitment 

to (i) just and democratic governance, 

(ii) economic freedom, and (iii) 

investments in its people; and (b) 

considering 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: 

The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for MCA assistance for FY 2012 

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); 

The criteria and methodology that the MCC 

Board of Directors (Board) will use to 

measure and evaluate the relative policy 

performance of the ‘‘candidate countries’’ 

consistent with the requirements of 

subsections (a) and (b) of section 607 of the 

Act in order to determine ‘‘MCA eligible 

countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate 

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

The list of countries determined by the 

Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible countries’’ for FY 

2012, identification of such countries with 

which the Board will seek to enter into 

compacts, and a justification for such 

eligibility determination and selection for 

compact negotiation (section 608(d) of the 

Act). 

This report is the first of three 

required reports listed above. This 

report was initially published in 

September 2011. In December 2011, 

Congress enacted changes in MCC’s FY 

2012 appropriation that redefined 

candidate countries for FY 2012 as part 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2012 (Pub. L. 112–74) (the 

‘‘Appropriations Act’’).2 While this does 

not affect the compact or threshold 

program eligibility decisions made at 

the December 2011 MCC Board meeting, 

it does alter the income classification of 

some candidate countries. As such, it is 

necessary for MCC to revise its FY 2012 

Candidate Country Report. This revised 

report incorporates the new definitions 

and the subsequent reclassification of 

countries. 

Candidate Countries for FY 2012 

The Act requires the identification of 

all countries that are candidates for 

MCA assistance for FY 2012 and the 

identification of all countries that would 

be candidate countries but for specified 

legal prohibitions on assistance. Due to 

provisions in the Appropriations Act, 

the FY 2012 candidate pool must be 

structured differently than in past years. 

The new provisions define low income 

as the 75 poorest countries and provide 

for gradual graduation from the low 

income to lower middle income 

category. This year’s newly-issued 

candidate list will establish the baseline 

of those countries for purposes of 

determining income levels. The 

provisions of the Appropriations Act 

that supplant Sections 606 (a) and (b) of 

the Act provide that for FY 2012, a 

country shall be a candidate for MCA 

assistance if it: 

Meets one of the following tests: 

Has a per capita income that is not greater 

than the World Bank’s lower middle income 

country threshold for such fiscal year ($3,975 

GNI per capita for FY12); and is among the 

75 lowest per capita income countries, as 

identified by the World Bank; or 

Has a per capita income that is not greater 

than the World Bank’s lower middle income 

country threshold for such fiscal year ($3,975 

GNI per capita for FY12); but is not among 

the 75 lowest per capita income countries as 

identified by the World Bank; 

and 

Is not ineligible to receive U.S. economic 

assistance under part I of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, (the 

‘‘Foreign Assistance Act’’), by reason of the 

application of the Foreign Assistance Act or 

any other provision of law. 

Pursuant to section 606(c) of the Act, 

the Board identified the following 

countries as candidate countries under 

the Act for FY 2012 at its March 22, 

2012 meeting. In so doing, the Board 

referred to the prohibitions on 

assistance as applied to countries in the 

Department of State, Foreign 

Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act, 2012 (SFOAA), 

Public Law 112–74, Div. I. All section 

references identified as prohibitions on 

assistance to a given country are taken 

from Title VII of the FY 2012 SFOAA, 

unless another statue is identified. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7607 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 

following information collection 

requirement to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. This is the second notice for public 

comment; the first was published in the 

Federal Register at 77 FR 3009, and no 

comments were received. NSF is 

forwarding the proposed renewal 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for clearance 

simultaneously with the publication of 

this second notice. Comments regarding 

(a) whether the collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; or (d) ways 

to minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES