Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 14149 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 13500 8 and for 

economic injury is 13501 0. 

The State which received an EIDL 

Declaration # is West Virginia. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Dated: February 25, 2013. 

Karen G. Mills, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04835 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #13502 and #13503] 

Louisiana Disaster #LA–00050 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Louisiana (FEMA–4102– 

DR), dated 02/22/2013. 

Incident: Severe storms and flooding. 

Incident Period: 01/08/2013 through 

01/17/2013. 

Effective Date: 02/22/2013. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 04/23/2013. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 11/22/2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

President’s major disaster declaration on 

02/22/2013, Private Non-Profit 

organizations that provide essential 

services of governmental nature may file 

disaster loan applications at the address 

listed above or other locally announced 

locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: Acadia, Catahoula, 

Concordia, East Carroll, Evangeline, 

Franklin, Jefferson, Livingston, 

Madison, Saint Landry, Vermilion. 

The Interest Rates are: 

Percent 

For Physical Damage: 

Non-Profit Organizations With 

Credit Available Elsewhere ... 2.875 

Percent 

Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 2.875 

For Economic Injury: 

Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 2.875 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 13502B and for 

economic injury is 13503B. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04834 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8213] 

2012 Fiscal Transparency Report 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State 

hereby presents the findings from the 

2012 Fiscal Transparency review 

process in its first annual Fiscal 

Transparency Report. This report 

describes the minimum standards of 

fiscal transparency developed by the 

Department of State, identifies the 

countries that did not meet the 

standard, and indicates whether those 

countries made progress toward meeting 

the standard. 

FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report 

The Department of State hereby 

presents the findings from the 2012 

Fiscal Transparency review process in 

its first annual Fiscal Transparency 

Report. Fiscal transparency is a critical 

element of effective public financial 

management, helps build market 

confidence, and sets the stage for 

economic sustainability. Transparency 

also provides a window into 

government budgets for citizens of any 

country, allowing them to hold their 

leadership accountable. The 

International Monetary Fund defines 

fiscal transparency as ‘‘the clarity, 

reliability, frequency, timeliness, and 

relevance of public fiscal reporting and 

the openness to the public of the 

government’s fiscal policy-making 

process.’’ 

For the United States, reviews of the 

fiscal transparency of countries that 

receive U.S. assistance via their central 

governments help to ensure that U.S. 

taxpayer money is used appropriately 

and creates a dialogue with 

governments to improve their fiscal 

performance, leading to greater 

macroeconomic stability and better 

development outcomes. This year, the 

Department assessed more than 140 

countries that received or were 

considered for U.S. foreign assistance 

via their central governments. 

The Department of State, Foreign 

Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 

112–74) (SFOAA) prohibits U.S. 

assistance to the central government of 

any country that does not meet 

minimum standards of fiscal 

transparency, unless the Secretary of 

State determines that a waiver is 

important to the U.S. national interest. 

For countries that did not meet the 

minimum standards, the Department of 

State also determined whether those 

governments made progress toward 

meeting those standards. 

This report describes the minimum 

standards of fiscal transparency 

developed by the Department of State, 

identifies the countries that did not 

meet the standard, and indicates 

whether those countries made progress 

toward meeting the standard. 

Fiscal Transparency Review Process 

The Department of State assessed 

fiscal transparency in more than 140 

countries in which central governments 

were receiving U.S. foreign assistance. 

The Department examines whether 

countries meet minimum standards of 

fiscal transparency, and whether the 

country has made progress in meeting 

those standards. Progress on fiscal 

transparency often includes publishing 

adequate budget documents, improved 

monitoring, or more robust accounting 

procedures that detail expenditures. 

The Department used information 

from U.S. embassies and consulates and 

international organizations such as the 

International Monetary Fund and 

multilateral development banks. U.S. 

diplomatic missions engaged with 

foreign government officials, 

nongovernmental and international 

organizations, and civil society to obtain 

information for these assessments. 

Using this information, for countries 

that did not meet the standard, U.S. 

diplomatic missions developed and 

implemented actions plans to work with 

governments, international 

organizations, and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) to improve the 

availability, reliability, and content of 

budget documentation. Such plans 

present short and long-term actions and 

goals that the foreign government can 

take, often with assistance from 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14150 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 

multilateral institutions such as the 

World Bank and IMF already engaged in 

similar efforts, to improve budget 

transparency. Examples include 

implementing a financial management 

system to help provide internal controls, 

approving freedom of information 

legislation, funding NGOs to provide 

training on budget oversight, or 

coordinating with international 

organizations to monitor budget 

transparency issues. 

Minimum Standards of Fiscal 

Transparency 

The SFOAA provides that the 

minimum standards of fiscal 

transparency developed by the 

Department shall include standards for 

the public disclosure of budget 

documentation, including: 

• Receipts and expenditures by 

ministry. 

• Government contracts and licenses 

for natural resource extraction, to 

include bidding and concession 

allocation practices. 

The fiscal transparency review 

process evaluated whether the central 

governments of countries receiving U.S. 

foreign assistance publicly disclosed 

budget documentation and related data, 

including receipts and expenditures by 

ministry. The review also assessed the 

existence and public disclosure of 

standards for government contracts and 

licenses for natural resource extraction, 

including bidding and concession 

allocation practices. To meet the 

minimum standards of fiscal 

transparency, budget data generally 

should be: 

• Substantially Complete: Budget 

documents should provide a 

substantially full picture of a country’s 

revenue streams, including natural 

resource revenues, and planned 

expenditures. Therefore, a published 

budget that does not include significant 

cash or non-cash resources, including 

foreign aid or the balances of special 

accounts or off-budget accounts, would 

not be considered transparent. This 

picture should include, in some fashion, 

financial results of state-owned 

enterprises. The review process 

recognizes that military and/or 

intelligence budgets are often not 

publicly available for national security 

reasons. 

• Reliable: Budget documents and 

data should be reliable, meaning that 

they are timely and accurate. Actual 

receipts and expenditures should 

reasonably correlate to the budget plan. 

Significant departures from planned 

receipts and expenditures should be 

explained in supplementary budget 

documentation that is publicly 

disclosed in a timely manner. 

• Transparent: ‘‘Public disclosure’’ is 

broadly interpreted to mean that the 

information is available on-line, at 

government offices or libraries, on 

request from the ministry, or for 

purchase (nominal fee) at a government 

office. 

The Department recognizes that the 

specific circumstances and practices 

that undermine fiscal transparency 

differ between countries. The review 

process takes a tailored approach in 

evaluating countries to make a 

determination of whether or not the 

central government provides an 

adequate level of budget detail to enable 

participation, monitoring, and feedback 

from civil society groups. 

Conclusions of Review Process 

For fiscal year 2012, the Department 

reviewed more than 140 countries 

where central governments receive U.S. 

government assistance to determine 

which countries did not meet minimum 

transparency standards. Of those 140 

countries, 34 were determined to be 

non-transparent; 32 of those nontransparent countries made progress in 

meeting the minimum standards of 

fiscal transparency. 

The following table lists the 34 

countries found non-transparent, 

including information on whether the 

Department made a determination of 

progress or no progress. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FY 2012 FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT PURSUANT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012 (DIV. I, PUB. L. 112–74) (SFOAA) 

Countries whose central governments received or were considered for 

SFOAA assistance assessed to be non-transparent Progress No progress 

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................................................................................. X ................

Algeria ...................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Angola ...................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Burma ...................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Cambodia ................................................................................................................................................................................. X ................

Cameroon ................................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Central African Republic .......................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Chad ........................................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Cote d’Ivoire ............................................................................................................................................................................. X ................

Dominican Republic ................................................................................................................................................................. X ................

DRC ......................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Egypt ........................................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Equatorial Guinea .................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Ethiopia .................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Gabon ...................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Guinea ..................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Guinea Bissau ......................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Haiti .......................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Kyrgyz Republic ....................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Lebanon ................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Libya ........................................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Nicaragua ................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ X 

Niger ........................................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Saudi Arabia ............................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Somalia .................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

South Sudan ............................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Swaziland ................................................................................................................................................................................. X ................

Suriname .................................................................................................................................................................................. X ................

Tajikistan .................................................................................................................................................................................. X ................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 14151 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FY 2012 FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT PURSUANT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012 (DIV. I, PUB. L. 112–74) (SFOAA)—Continued 

Countries whose central governments received or were considered for 

SFOAA assistance assessed to be non-transparent Progress No progress 

Turkmenistan ........................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Uzbekistan ............................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Vietnam .................................................................................................................................................................................... X ................

Yemen ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ X 

Zimbabwe ................................................................................................................................................................................ X ................

Dated: February 15, 2013. 

Thomas R. Nides, 

Deputy Secretary of State for Management 

and Resources, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04914 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Delegation of Authority No. 347] 

Delegation by the Secretary of State to 

the Assistant Secretary for Consular 

Affairs and the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Visa Services of the 

Authority To Make Findings of 

Extraordinary Circumstance for Aliens 

Who Remain in the United States 

Beyond Their Authorized Periods 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

me as Secretary of State, including 

Section 1 of the State Department Basic 

Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 

2651a), I hereby delegate to the 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs 

and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Visa Services, to the extent authorized 

by law, the authority under Immigration 

and Nationality Act (INA) section 

222(g)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1202(g)(2)(B), to 

make findings that extraordinary 

circumstances exist, relative to 

circumstances that may be confronted 

by one or more aliens, to ensure that the 

alien would not be denied admission by 

operation of section 222(g) on a 

subsequent application for admission, 

when they remained in the United 

States beyond their authorized period of 

stay. 

Any act, executive order, regulation, 

or procedure subject to, or affected by, 

this delegation shall be deemed to be 

such act, executive order, regulation, or 

procedure as amended from time to 

time. 

Notwithstanding this delegation of 

authority, the Secretary, the Deputy 

Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for 

Management and Resources, and the 

Under Secretary for Management may at 

any time exercise any authority or 

function delegated by this delegation of 

authority. 

This delegation of authority shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Dated: January 29, 2013. 

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 

Secretary of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04915 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8212] 

Department of State Performance 

Review Board Members 

In accordance with section 4314(c)(4) 

of 5 United States Code, the Department 

of State has appointed the following 

individuals to the Department of State 

Performance Review Board for Senior 

Executive Service members: 

Dawn McCall, Chairperson, 

Coordinator, Office of International 

Information Programs, Department of 

State; 

Gerard White, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Bureau of Conflict and 

Stabilization Operations, Department 

of State; 

Bathsheba Crocker, Principal Deputy 

Director, Office of Policy Planning, 

Department of State. 

Dated: February 25, 2013. 

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, 

Director General of the Foreign Service and 

Director of Human Resources, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04913 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Meeting: RTCA Program Management 

Committee 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program 

Management Committee Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public of a meeting of 

RTCA Program Management Committee. 

DATES: The meeting will be held March 

20, 2013, from 8:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 

910, Washington, DC, 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., 

Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by 

telephone at (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 

833–9434, or Web site at http:// 

www.rtca.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby 

given for a Program Management 

Committee meeting. The agenda will 

include the following: 

March 20, 2013 

• Welcome and Introductions. 

• Review/Approve Meeting Summary. 

• Publication Consideration/Approval 

• Final Draft, New Document, 

Guidelines for Verification and 

Validation of Aerodrome Mapping 

Databases (AMDB) Aerodrome 

Surface Routing Networks (ASRN) 

for Routing Application, prepared 

by SC–217. 

• Final Draft, New Document, 

Minimum Aviation System 

Performance Standards (MASPS) 

for the Aeronautical Mobile-satellite 

(R) Service (AMS(R)S), prepared by 

SC–222. 

• Final Draft, Change 2 to DO–185B, 

Minimum Operational Standards 

for Traffic Alert and Collision 

Avoidance System II (TCAS II), 

prepared by SC–147. 

• Final Draft, Revised DO–300, 

Minimum Operational Performance 

Standards (MOPS) for Traffic Alert 

and Collision Avoidance System II 

(TCAS II) Hybrid Surveillance, 

prepared by SC–147. 

• Integration and Coordination 

Committee (ICC)—Report 

• Review/Approve, Aircraft Systemlevel Installation Guidance (ASIG) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES