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

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


### 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 benon-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. D EPARTMENT OF 

### STATE 

### FY 2012 F ISCAL 

### T RANSPARENCY 

### R EPORT 

### P URSUANT TO THE 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### STATE


### ,

FOREIGN 

### O PERATIONS AND 

### R ELATED 

### P ROGRAMS 

### APPROPRIATIONS 

### ACT

### , 2012 (D IV 

### . I, P UB 

### . 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 ................


### 14151 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices

U.S. D EPARTMENT OF 

### STATE 

### FY 2012 F ISCAL 

### T RANSPARENCY 

### R EPORT 

### P URSUANT TO THE 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### STATE 

### , FOR



### EIGN 

### O PERATIONS AND 

### R ELATED 

### P ROGRAMS 

### APPROPRIATIONS 

### ACT

### , 2012 (D IV 

### . I, P UB 

### . 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)