Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46289 

respondents, proposed frequency of 

response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained free of charge from the 

RegInfo.gov Web site at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201708-1219-005 

or by contacting Michel Smyth by 

telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202– 

693–8064, (these are not toll-free 

numbers) or by email at DOL_PRA_

PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Submit comments about this request 

by mail to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for DOL–MSHA, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is 

not a toll-free number); or by email: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Commenters are encouraged, but not 

required, to send a courtesy copy of any 

comments by mail or courier to the U.S. 

Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Attn: 

Departmental Information Compliance 

Management Program, Room N1301, 

200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; or by email: 

DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– 

4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not 

toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_

PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR 

seeks to extend PRA authority for the 

Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness 

Report and Quarterly Mine Employment 

and Coal Production Report information 

collection. The reporting and 

recordkeeping provisions in regulations 

30 CFR part 50, Notification, 

Investigation, Reports and Records of 

Accidents, Injuries and Illnesses, 

Employment and Coal Production in 

Mines, are essential elements in the 

MSHA’s Congressional mandate to 

reduce work-related injuries and 

illnesses among the nation’s miners. 

Accident, injury, and illness data, when 

correlated with employment and 

production data, provide information 

that allows the MSHA to improve its 

safety and health enforcement programs, 

focus its education and training efforts, 

and establish priorities for its technical 

assistance activities in mine safety and 

health. Maintaining a current database 

allows the MSHA to identify and direct 

increased attention to those mines, 

industry segments, and geographical 

areas where hazardous trends are 

developing. This could not be done 

effectively using historical data. The 

information collected under part 50 is 

the most comprehensive and reliable 

occupational data available concerning 

the mining industry. The Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 

101(a) and 103(h) authorize this 

information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 

813(h), 30 U.S.C. 811(a). 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless it is 

approved by the OMB under the PRA 

and displays a currently valid OMB 

Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid Control Number. See 5 

CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL 

obtains OMB approval for this 

information collection under Control 

Number 1219–0007. 

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot 

be for more than three (3) years without 

renewal, and the current approval for 

this collection is scheduled to expire on 

September 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to 

extend PRA authorization for this 

information collection for three (3) more 

years, without any change to existing 

requirements. The DOL notes that 

existing information collection 

requirements submitted to the OMB 

receive a month-to-month extension 

while they undergo review. For 

additional substantive information 

about this ICR, see the related notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 16, 2017 (82 FR 27727). 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the OMB, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs at 

the address shown in the ADDRESSES

section within thirty (30) days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. In order to help ensure 

appropriate consideration, comments 

should mention OMB Control Number 

1219–0007. The OMB is particularly 

interested in comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: DOL–MSHA. 

Title of Collection: Mine Accident, 

Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly 

Mine Employment and Coal Production 

Report. 

OMB Control Number: 1219–0007. 

Affected Public: Private Sector— 

businesses or other for-profits. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 24,958. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 118,417. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

162,326 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $2,847. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). 

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

Michel Smyth, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21320 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 17–06] 

Report on the Criteria and 

Methodology for Determining the 

Eligibility of Candidate Countries for 

Millennium Challenge Account 

Assistance in Fiscal Year 2018 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This report to Congress is 

provided in accordance with Section 

608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act 

of 2003, as amended, (the ‘‘Act’’). 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Jeanne M. Hauch, 

VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

Report on the Criteria and Methodology 

for Determining the Eligibility of 

Candidate Countries for Millennium 

Challenge Account Assistance for Fiscal 

Year 2018 

Summary 

In accordance with section 608(b)(2) 

of the Millennium Challenge Act of 

2003 (the ‘‘Act,’’ 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(l)), 

the Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(MCC) is submitting the enclosed report. 

This report identifies the criteria and 

methodology that MCC intends to use to 

determine which candidate countries 

may be eligible to be considered for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
46290 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

1This corresponds to LIC and LMIC definitions 

using the historic International Development 

Association (IDA) thresholds published by the 

World Bank. 

2By law, no more than 25 percent of all compact 

funds for a given fiscal year may be provided to 

LMIC countries (using this ‘‘funding’’ definition). 

assistance under the Act for fiscal year 

2018. 

Under section 608 (c)(1) of the Act, 

MCC will, for a thirty-day period 

following publication, accept and 

consider public comment for purposes 

of determining eligible countries under 

section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706). 

Criteria and Methodology for FY 2018 

This document explains how the 

Board of Directors (Board) of the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(MCC) will identify, evaluate, and select 

eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 

2018. The statutory basis for this report 

is set forth in Appendix A. Specifically, 

this document discusses: 

I. Which countries MCC will evaluate 

II. How the Board evaluates these 

countries 

A. Overall 

B. For Selection for First Compact 

Eligibility 

C. For Selection for Second/ 

Subsequent Compact Eligibility 

D. For Threshold Program Assistance 

E. A Note on Potential Regional 

Investments 

F. A Note on Potential Transition to 

Upper Middle Income Country 

(UMIC) Status After Initial 

Selection 

I. Which countries are evaluated? 

MCC evaluates all low-income 

countries (LICs) and lower-middle 

income countries (LMICs) as follows: 

• For scorecard evaluation purposes 

for FY 2018, MCC defines LICs as those 

countries between $0 and $1,905 GNI 

per capita, and LMICs as those countries 

between $1,906 and $3,955 GNI per 

capita.1

• For funding purposes for FY 2018, 

MCC defines the poorest 75 countries as 

LICs, and the remaining countries up to 

the UMIC threshold of $3,955 as 

LMICs.2

In Appendix B, lists of all LICs, 

LMICs and statutorily prohibited 

countries for scorecard evaluation 

purposes are provided. The list using 

the ‘‘funding’’ definition was outlined 

in the August 2017 Report on Countries 

that are Candidates for Millennium 

Challenge Account Eligibility for Fiscal 

Year 2018 and Countries that Would be 

Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions 

(the ‘‘Candidate Country Report’’), and 

describes how funding categories work. 

II. How does the Board evaluate these 

countries? 

A. Overall Evaluation 

The Board looks at three legislativelymandated factors in its evaluation of 

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 

Because of the importance of needing 

to evaluate a country’s policy 

performance and needing to do so in a 

comparable, cross-country way, the 

Board relies to the maximum extent 

possible upon the best-available 

objective and quantifiable indicators of 

policy performance. These indicators 

act as proxies of the country’s 

commitment to just and democratic 

governance, economic freedom, and 

investing in its people, as laid out in 

MCC’s founding legislation. Comprised 

of 20 third-party indicators in the 

categories of ‘‘encouraging economic 

freedom,’’ ‘‘investing in people,’’ and 

‘‘ruling justly,’’ MCC ‘‘scorecards’’ are 

created for all LICs and LMICs. To 

‘‘pass’’ the indicators on the scorecard, 

the country must perform above the 

median among its income group (as 

defined above for scorecard evaluation 

purposes), except in the cases of 

inflation, political rights, civil liberties, 

and immunization rates (LMICs only), 

where threshold scores have been 

established. In particular, the Board 

considers whether the country: 

• Passed at least 10 of the 20 

indicators, with at least one in each 

category, 

• 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 

performed ‘‘substantially worse’’ in any 

one policy category than it does on the 

scorecard overall. Appendix C describes 

all 20 indicators, their definitions, what 

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

their relationship to the legislative 

criteria. 

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. 

• 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 provides an incentive for 

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 

either a first or second/subsequent 

compact. However, the Board also 

recognizes that even the best-available 

data has inherent challenges. For 

example, data gaps, real-time events 

versus data lags, the absence of 

narratives and nuanced detail, and other 

similar weaknesses affect each of these 

indicators. In such instances, the Board 

uses its judgment to interpret policy 

performance as measured by the 

scorecards. The Board may also consult 

other sources of information to further 

enhance its understanding of a given 

country’s policy performance beyond 

the issues on the scorecard, which is 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46291 

3For example, women; children; lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, and transgender individuals; people with 

disabilities; and workers. 

especially useful given the unique 

perspective of each Board member (e.g., 

specific policy issues related to trade, 

civil society, other U.S. aid programs, 

financial sector performance, and 

security/foreign policy issues). The 

Board uses its judgment on how best to 

weigh such information in assessing 

overall policy performance. 

2. The Opportunity To Reduce Poverty 

and Generate Economic Growth 

The Board also consults other sources 

of qualitative and quantitative 

information to have a more detailed 

view of the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth 

in a country. 

While the Board considers a range of 

other information sources depending on 

the country, specific areas of attention 

typically include better understanding 

the issues on, trends in, and trajectory 

of: 

• The state of democratic and human 

rights (especially of vulnerable 

groups 3); 

• The perspective of civil society 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; 

• The levels of poverty 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 skills 

versus the country’s needs, capacity 

within MCC to work with a country, and 

the likelihood that MCC is seen by the 

country as a credible partner. 

This information provides greater 

clarity on the likelihood that MCC 

investments will have an appreciable 

impact on reducing poverty and 

generating economic growth in a given 

country. The Board has used such 

information both to not select countries 

that are otherwise passing their 

scorecards, as well as to better 

understand when a country’s 

performance on a particular indicator 

may not be up to date or is about to 

change. More details on this subject 

(sometimes referred to as ‘‘supplemental 

information’’) can be found on MCC’s 

Web site. 

3. The Availability of MCC Funds 

The final factor that the Board must 

consider when evaluating countries is 

the funding available. The agency’s 

allocation of its budget is constrained, 

and often specifically limited, by 

provisions in the authorizing legislation 

and appropriations acts. MCC has a 

continuous pipeline of countries in 

compact development, compact 

implementation, and compact closeout, 

as well as threshold programs. 

Consequently, the Board factors in the 

overall portfolio picture when making 

its selection decisions given the funding 

available for each of the agency’s 

planned or existing programs. 

* * * * * 

The following subsections describe 

how each of these three legislativelymandated factors are applied with 

regard to the selection situations the 

Board encounters each December: 

selection of countries for first compact 

eligibility, selection of countries for 

second/subsequent compact eligibility, 

and selection of countries for the 

threshold program. Thereafter, notes are 

included on consideration of countries 

for potential regional investments, and 

issues for consideration for countries 

that might graduate to upper middle 

income country status after initial 

selection. 

B. Evaluation for Selection of Countries 

for First Compact Eligibility 

When selecting eligible countries, the 

Board looks at all three legislativelymandated aspects described in the 

previous section: (1) Policy 

performance, first and foremost as 

measured by the scorecards and 

bolstered through additional 

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) the funding available. 

At a minimum, the Board looks to see 

that the country passes its scorecard. It 

also examines supporting evidence that 

the 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, as described 

in the previous section), and that MCC 

has funding to support a meaningful 

compact with that country. Where 

applicable, previous threshold program 

information is also considered. The 

Board then weighs the information 

described above across each of the three 

dimensions. 

The approach described above is then 

applied in any additional years of 

selection of a country to continue to 

develop a first compact, with the added 

benefit of having cumulative scorecards, 

cumulative records of policy 

performance, and other accumulated 

supporting information to determine the 

overall pattern of performance over the 

emerging multi-year trajectory. 

C. Evaluation for Selection of Countries 

for Second/Subsequent Compact 

Eligibility 

Section 609(k) of the Millennium 

Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 

specifically authorizes MCC to enter 

into ‘‘one or more subsequent 

Compacts.’’ MCC does not consider 

subsequent compact eligibility, 

however, before countries have 

completed their compact or are within 

18 months of completion, (e.g., a second 

compact if they have completed or are 

within 18 months of completing their 

first compact). Selection for subsequent 

compacts is not automatic and is 

intended only for countries that (1) 

exhibit successful performance on their 

previous compact; (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 

To evaluate the degree of success of 

the previous compact, the Board looks 

to see if there is a clear evidence base 

of success within the budget and time 

limits of the compact, 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 ability that the 

country can deliver; 

• 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; and 

• The degree to which the country 

has implemented the compact in 

accordance with MCC’s core policies 

and standards: That is, is the country 

adhering to MCC’s policies and 

procedures, including in critical areas 

such as remediating unresolved fraud 

and corruption and abuse or misuse of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
46292 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

funds issues; procurement; and 

monitoring and evaluation. 

Details on the specific types of 

information examined (and sources 

used) in each of the three areas are 

provided in Appendix D. Overall, the 

Board is looking for evidence that the 

previous compact will be completed or 

has been completed successfully, on 

time and on budget, and that there is a 

commitment to continued, robust 

reform going forward. 

2. Improved Scorecard Policy 

Performance 

Beyond successful implementation of 

the previous compact, the Board 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 overall scorecard pass/fail rate 

over time, 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 as 

deemed relevant by the Board. 

In all cases, while the Board expects 

the country to be passing its scorecard, 

other sources of information are 

examined 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 

gleaned through consultations with civil 

society and related stakeholders). Other 

sources of information are also 

consulted to look at policy performance 

over time in areas not covered by the 

scorecard, but that are deemed 

important by the Board (such as trade, 

foreign policy concerns, etc.). 

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 its 

own experience during the previous 

compact in considering how committed 

the country is to reducing poverty and 

increasing economic growth, and 

therefore tries to gauge the country’s 

commitment for 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 sources of 

information that describe the nature of 

the opportunity to reduce poverty and 

generate growth (as outlined in A.2 

above), and the relative success of the 

previous compact 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 

subsequent compact selection, the 

Board applies the three legislatively 

mandated evaluation criteria (policy 

performance, the opportunity to reduce 

poverty and generate economic growth, 

and the funding available) in a way that 

rests critically on deeply assessing the 

previous partnership: From a compact 

success standpoint, a commitment to 

improved scorecard policy performance 

standpoint, and a commitment to 

continued sector policy reform 

standpoint. The Board then weighs all 

of the information described above in 

making its decision. 

The approach described above is then 

applied in any additional years of 

selection necessary as the country 

continues to develop the subsequent 

compact, with the added benefit of 

having further detail on previous 

compact implementation, cumulative 

scorecards, records of policy 

performance, and other accumulated 

supporting information to determine the 

overall pattern of performance over the 

resulting multi-year trajectory. 

D. Evaluation for Threshold Program 

Assistance 

The Board may also evaluate 

countries for participation in the 

Threshold Program. The Threshold 

Program provides assistance to 

candidate countries that exhibit a 

significant commitment to meeting the 

criteria described in the previous subsections, but fail to meet such 

requirements. Specifically, in examining 

the policy performance, the opportunity 

to reduce poverty and generate 

economic growth, and the funding 

available, the Board will consider 

whether a country that potentially 

qualifies for threshold program 

assistance appears to be on a trajectory 

to becoming viable for compact 

eligibility in the medium term. 

E. A Note on Potential Regional 

Investments 

FY 2018 marks the third year that the 

Board may consider selecting countries 

where potential regional investments 

(i.e., complementary assistance by MCC 

to two or more countries in a region) 

may be developed. 

With respect to regional investments, 

the fundamental criteria and process for 

selection will remain unchanged: 

Countries will continue to be evaluated 

and selected individually, as described 

in sections A, B, and C above. However, 

for countries where regional 

investments might be contemplated, the 

Board will also examine additional 

supplemental information looking at the 

policy environment from a regional 

dimension. 

Specifically, the Board will examine 

additional data and information related 

to: 

• The current state of the country’s 

political and economic integration with 

its region and neighbors; 

• Impediments to further integration 

with its region and neighbors; and 

• The potential gains from investing 

at a regional level, including illustrative 

potential sector opportunities. 

The Board will weigh this additional 

regional information in tandem with the 

other supplemental factors described 

earlier in sections A, B, and C. The 

Board will then decide whether or not 

it will direct MCC to explore some form 

of a regional investment with the 

country. 

F. A Note on Potential Transition to 

Upper Middle Income Country (UMIC) 

Status After Initial Selection 

Some candidate countries may have a 

high LMIC per capita income and/or a 

high growth rate that implies there is a 

chance they could transition to UMIC 

status during the life of an MCC 

partnership. In such cases, it is not 

possible to accurately predict when 

such a country may or may not 

transition to UMIC status. 

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 also use its 

discretion to assess both the need and 

the opportunity presented by partnering 

with such a country, in order to ensure 

that there is a higher bar for possible 

selection. 

Specifically, if a candidate country 

with a high probability of transitioning 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46293 

4 In December 2011, a statutory change requested 

by MCC altered the way MCC must group countries 

for the purposes of applying MCC’s 25 percent 

LMIC funding cap. This change, designed to bring 

stability to the funding stream, affects how MCC 

funds countries selected for compacts and does not 

affect the way scorecards are created. For 

determining whether a country can be funded as an 

LMIC or LIC: 

• The poorest 75 countries are now considered 

LICs for the purposes of MCC funding. They are not 

limited by the 25 percent funding cap on LMICs. 

• Countries with a GNI per capita above the 

poorest 75 but below the World Bank’s upper 

middle income country threshold ($3,955 for FY 

2018) are considered LMICs for the purposes of 

MCC funding. By law, no more than 25 percent of 

all compact funds for a given fiscal year can be 

provided to these countries. 

The FY 2018 Candidate Country Report lists LICs 

and LMICs based on this definition and outlines 

which countries are subject to the 25 percent 

funding cap. 

to UMIC status is under consideration 

for selection, the Board will examine 

additional data and information related 

to: 

• 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, examining if 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 investments that spur 

economic growth. 

• Whether the country demonstrates 

particularly strong policy performance, 

including policies and actions that 

demonstrate a clear priority on poverty 

reduction. 

• 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 the country 

eventually transition to UMIC status 

during compact development, the 

country would no longer be a candidate 

country for that fiscal year. 

Consequently, continuing the 

partnership beyond that point would 

then be at the Board’s discretion, and 

would rely on funding from previous 

fiscal years from when the country was 

a candidate country. 

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

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 2018 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: 

1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for assistance for FY 2018 

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 2018, 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 LICs, LMICs, 

and Statutorily Prohibited Countries for 

Evaluation Purposes 

Income Classification 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: LICs and LMICs. 

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 scorecards 

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 

traditional income categories for 

eligibility to categorize countries in two 

groups for purposes of FY 2018 

scorecard comparisons: 

• LICs are countries with GNI per 

capita below IDA’s historical ceiling for 

eligibility ($1,905 for FY 2018); and 

• LMICs are countries with GNI per 

capita above IDA’s historical ceiling for 

eligibility but below the World Bank’s 

upper middle income country threshold 

($1,906–$3,955 for FY 2018). 

The list of countries categorized as 

LICs and LMICs for the purpose of FY 

2018 scorecard assessments can be 

found below.4

Low Income Countries (FY 2018 

Scorecard) 

1. Afghanistan 

2. Bangladesh 

3. Benin 

4. Burkina Faso 

5. Burma 

6. Burundi 

7. Cambodia 

8. Cameroon 

9. Central African Republic 

10. Chad 

11. Comoros 

12. Democratic Republic of Congo 

13. Republic of Congo 

14. Coˆte d’Ivoire 

15. Djibouti 

16. Eritrea 

17. Ethiopia 

18. Gambia 

19. Ghana 

20. Guinea 

21. Guinea-Bissau 

22. Haiti 

23. India 

24. Kenya 

25. Kyrgyz Republic 

26. Lesotho 

27. Liberia 

28. Madagascar 

29. Malawi 

30. Mali 

31. Mauritania 

32. Mozambique 

33. Nepal 

34. Niger 

35. North Korea 

36. Pakistan 

37. Rwanda 

38. Sa ̃o Tome ́ and Principe 

39. Senegal 

40. Sierra Leone 

41. Solomon Islands 

42. Somalia 

43. South Sudan 

44. Syria 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
46294 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

5This list is current as of August 1, 2017. 

Between such date and the December 2017 

selection Board meeting, other countries may also 

be the subject of future statutory restrictions or 

determinations, or changed country circumstances, 

that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under 

part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of 

application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any 

other provision of law for FY2018. Even though 

these countries are prohibited from received 

assistance, scorecards are still created for them to 

ensure all countries are included in an income 

group in order to determine the global medians/ 

scores for that income group. 

6Special note on Kosovo: Since UN agencies do 

not currently publish data for Kosovo due to nonrecognition status, MCC is unable to source data 

directly from the UN for the six indicators that are 

constructed in all or in part from this data: Land 

Rights and Access, Health Expenditures, Primary 

Education Expenditures, Immunization Rates, Girls’ 

Secondary Education Enrollment Rate, and Child 

Health. As result, MCC publishes data from UNKT 

(the UN Kosovo Team) in cases where UNKT uses 

comparable methodologies to their UN sister 

organizations. See http://www.unkt.org/ for more 

information. 

45. Tajikistan 

46. Tanzania 

47. Timor-Leste 

48. Togo 

49. Uganda 

50. Yemen 

51. Zambia 

52. Zimbabwe 

Lower Middle Income Countries (FY 

2018 Scorecard) 

1. Angola 

2. Armenia 

3. Bhutan 

4. Bolivia 

5. Cabo Verde 

6. Egypt 

7. El Salvador 

8. Georgia 

9. Guatemala 

10. Honduras 

11. Indonesia 

12. Jordan 

13. Kiribati 

14. Kosovo 

15. Lao PDR 

16. Micronesia 

17. Moldova 

18. Mongolia 

19. Morocco 

20. Nicaragua 

21. Nigeria 

22. Papua New Guinea 

23. Philippines 

24. Sri Lanka 

25. Sudan 

26. Swaziland 

27. Tunisia 

28. Ukraine 

29. Uzbekistan 

30. Vanuatu 

31. Vietnam 

Statutorily Prohibited Countries for 

FY18 5

1. Bolivia 

2. Burma 

3. Eritrea 

4. North Korea 

5. South Sudan 

6. Sudan 

7. Syria 

8. 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.6 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 

public website at www.mcc.gov). 

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 filtering internet 

content or tools. Pass: Score must be 

above the median score for the income 

group. Source: Freedom House/Centre 

for Law and Democracy. 

4. Government Effectiveness: An 

index of surveys and expert assessments 

that rate 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% 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46295 

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, 

and to travel freely. Pass: Score must be 

above the median score for the income 

group. Source: International Finance 

Corporation 

a. Due to an expansion in the number 

of areas examined by the indicator 

institution since this indicator’s 

conception in FY 2012, from FY 2019 

the Gender in the Economy indicator 

will be expanded, and incorporate new 

areas such as property rights 

protections, protections against 

domestic violence, and child marriage 

(among others). Expanded details 

regarding these changes are provided in 

the annual Guide to the Indicators and 

Selection Process, and annual Data 

Notes, available on MCC’s website. 

b. To phase in this new construction 

of the indicator, the original version of 

the indicator will be used on the FY 

2018 scorecards. However, an appendix 

to the scorecards will be published that 

will show how countries would perform 

under the new construction of the 

indicator. From FY 2019, the new 

construction of the indicator will then 

fully replace the current version on the 

scorecard. 

6. Land Rights and Access: An index 

that rates countries on the extent to 

which the institutional, legal, and 

market framework provide secure land 

tenure and equitable access to land in 

rural areas and the time and cost of 

property registration in urban and periurban areas. Pass: Score must be above 

the median score for the income group. 

Source: The International Fund for 

Agricultural Development and the 

International Finance Corporation 

7. Access to Credit: An index that 

rates countries on rules and practices 

affecting the coverage, scope, and 

accessibility of credit information 

available through either a public credit 

registry or a private credit bureau; as 

well as legal rights in collateral laws 

and bankruptcy laws. Pass: Score must 

be above the median score for the 

income group. Source: International 

Finance Corporation 

8. Business Start-Up: An index that 

rates countries on the time and cost of 

complying with all procedures officially 

required for an entrepreneur to start up 

and formally operate an industrial or 

commercial business. Pass: Score must 

be above the median score for the 

income group. Source: International 

Finance Corporation 

Investing in People 

1. Public Expenditure on Health: 

Total expenditures on health by 

government at all levels divided by 

GDP. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for the income group. 

Source: The World Health Organization 

2. Total Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education: Total expenditures 

on primary 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 whether countries are 

protecting up to 17 percent of all their 

biomes (e.g., deserts, tropical 

rainforests, grasslands, savannas and 

tundra). 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 

4. Immunization Rates: The average of 

DPT3 and measles immunization 

coverage rates for the most recent year 

available. Pass: Score must be above the 

median score for LICs, and 90% or 

higher for LMICs. 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). LICs 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 Secondary Enrollment 

Education: The number of female pupils 

enrolled in lower secondary school, 

regardless of age, expressed as a 

percentage of the population of females 

in the theoretical age group for lower 

secondary education. LMICs 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 Legislative 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, 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); 

and 

(E) combat corruption (Political 

Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, 

Freedom of Information, and Control of 

Corruption); 

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, Business Start-Up, Fiscal 

Policy, Land Rights and Access, Access 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
46296 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

to Credit, Gender in the Economy, and 

Regulatory Quality); 

(C) strengthen market forces in the 

economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade 

Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights 

and Access, Access to Credit, and 

Regulatory Quality); and 

(D) respect worker rights, including 

the right to form labor unions (Civil 

Liberties and Gender in the Economy); 

and 

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, and Total Public 

Expenditure on Primary Education); 

(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 Compact 

Considerations 

MCC reporting and data in the 

following chart are used to assess 

compact performance of MCC partners 

nearing the end of compact 

implementation (i.e., within 18-months 

of compact end date). 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 (https://

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

monitoring and evaluation (https://

www.mcc.gov/our-impact/m-and-e) 

webpages. 

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 MCA capacity 

issues. 

• Political independence of MCA. 

• Quarterly implementation reporting. 

• Quarterly results reporting. 

• Survey of MCC staff. 

• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of Key Performance 

Indicators’’ (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/ourimpact/m-and-e. 

• Survey questions to be posted: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/summary-compact-survey-summary-fy18. 

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 funding. 

• Disbursements. 

Project Results: 

• Output, outcome, objective targets. 

• MCA commitment to ‘focus on results’. 

• MCA cooperation on impact evaluation. 

• Percent complete for process/outputs. 

• Relevant outcome data. 

• Details behind target delays. 

• Indicator tracking tables. 

• Quarterly financial reporting. 

• Quarterly implementation reporting. 

• Quarterly results reporting. 

• Survey of MCC staff. 

• Impact evaluations. 

• Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (available by country): 

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

• Quarterly Status Reports (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/ourimpact/m-and-e. 

• Survey questions to be posted: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/summary-compact-survey-summary-fy18. 

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. 

• Survey of MCC staff. 

• Published OIG and GAO audits. 

• Survey questions to be posted: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/summary-compact-survey-summary-fy18. 

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. 

• Survey of MCC staff. 

• Quarterly results published as ‘‘Table of Key Performance 

Indicators’’ (available by country): https://www.mcc.gov/ourimpact/m-and-e. 

• Survey questions to be posted: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/summary-compact-survey-summary-fy18. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46297 

[FR Doc. 2017–21448 Filed 10–2–17; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9211–03–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (17–072)] 

NASA Advisory Council; Science 

Committee; Ad Hoc Task Force on Big 

Data; Meeting 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) 

announces a meeting of the Ad Hoc Big 

Data Task Force (BDTF). This task force 

reports to the NASA Advisory Council’s 

Science Committee. The meeting will be 

held for the purpose of soliciting and 

discussing, from the scientific 

community and other persons, scientific 

and technical information relevant to 

big data. 

DATES: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 

8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; Thursday, 

November 2, 2017, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; 

and Friday, November 3, 2017, 8:30 

a.m.–5:00 p.m., Local Time. 

ADDRESSES: Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(JPL), Theodore von Ka ́rma ́n 

Auditorium, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, 

Pasadena, CA 91011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission 

Directorate, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–2355, 

fax (202) 358–2779, or khenderson@

nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will be open to the public up 

to the capacity of the room. The meeting 

will also be available telephonically and 

by WebEx. You must use a touch tone 

phone to participate in this meeting. 

Any interested person may dial the USA 

toll free conference call number 888– 

324–9653, or toll number 1–312–470– 

7273, passcode 3883300, to participate 

in this meeting by telephone for all 

three days. The WebEx link is https:// 

nasa.webex.com/; the meeting number 

is 991 009 965 and the password is 

BDTFmtg#6 for all three days. The 

agenda for the meeting includes the 

following topics: 

—Update on JPL/Caltech Data Science 

Programs and Projects 

—Review of BDTF Studies 

—Discussion of Draft Findings and 

Recommendations. 

Attendees will be requested to sign a 

register and to comply with JPL security 

requirements. It is imperative that the 

meeting be held on these dates to the 

scheduling priorities of the key 

participants. 

Patricia D. Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21255 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Request for Comment Regarding 

National Credit Union Administration 

Draft 2018–2022 Strategic Plan 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The NCUA Board (Board) is 

requesting comment on its 2018–2022 

Draft Strategic Plan. The NCUA 2018– 

2022 Draft Strategic Plan summarizes 

our analysis of the internal and external 

environment impacting NCUA; 

evaluates NCUA programs and risks; 

and provides goals and objectives for 

the next five years. While the Board 

welcomes all comments from the public 

and stakeholders, it specifically invites 

comments and input on the proposed 

goals and objectives of the strategic 

plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 4, 2017 to be 

assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (Please 

send comments by one method only): 

• NCUA Web site: https://

www.ncua.gov/about/pages/boardcomments.aspx. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Email: Address to boardcomments@

ncua.gov. Include ‘‘[Your name]— 

Comments on NCUA 2018–2022 Draft 

Strategic Plan’’ in the email subject line. 

• Fax: (703) 518–6319. Include your 

name and the following subject line: 

‘‘Comments on NCUA 2018–2022 Draft 

Strategic Plan.’’ 

• Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, 

Secretary of the Board, National Credit 

Union Administration, 1775 Duke 

Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314– 

3428. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail address. 

Public Inspection: You can view all 

public comments on NCUA’s Web site 

at https://www.ncua.gov/about/pages/ 

board-comments.aspx as submitted, 

except for those we cannot post for 

technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or 

remove any identifying or contact 

information from the public comments 

submitted. You may inspect paper 

copies of comments at NCUA’s 

headquarters at 1775 Duke Street, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by 

appointment weekdays between 9 a.m. 

and 3 p.m. To make an appointment, 

call (703) 518–6570 or send an email to 

boardcomments@ncua.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Lowden, Management Analyst, 

National Credit Union Administration, 

1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314–3428 or telephone: (703) 518– 

1182. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 306. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires agencies to 

prepare strategic plans, annual 

performance plans and annual 

performance reports with measurable 

performance indicators to address the 

policy, budgeting and oversight needs of 

both Congress and agency leaders, 

partners/stakeholders, and program 

managers. In 2010, Congress passed the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, 

which further requires a leadershipdriven governance model with emphasis 

on quarterly reviews and transparency. 

The GPRA Modernization Act requires 

agencies to set priority goals linked to 

longer-term Agency strategic goals. Part 

6 of Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–11 provides 

additional guidance and requirements 

for federal agencies to implement these 

laws. The NCUA Draft Strategic Plan 

2018–2022 is issued pursuant to the 

GPRA, the GPRA Modernization Act, 

and OMB Circular A–11. 

The NCUA 2018–2022 Draft Strategic 

Plan outlines how the agency will 

continue to effectively supervise and 

insure a growing and evolving credit 

union system. As the financial services 

and the credit union sector evolve, 

NCUA must adjust to meet the 

challenges the changes provide. In 

response, we are adopting new 

technology and analytical tools to 

improve the agency’s offsite monitoring 

capabilities. Additionally, we are 

recalibrating our examination approach 

to reflect a more stable economic 

environment. We also are revising the 

agency’s operations, priorities and 

structure to ensure our objectives match 

those prescribed in the Federal Credit 

Union Act, while at the same time 

efficiently using the agency’s resources. 

In the years ahead, NCUA also plans 

to advance meaningful regulatory relief 

by fully reevaluating our rules and 

working to modify them as appropriate, 

improving the uniformity of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES