Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2009, 121-123 [E8-30965]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
occupational safety and health at
specified privatized facilities and
operations on DOE sites. The 2000
Memorandum of Understanding
specifically covers facilities and
operations on lands that have been
leased to private enterprises, which are
not conducting activities for or on
behalf of DOE, and where there is no
likelihood that any employee exposure
to radiation from DOE sources would be
25 millirems per year (mrem/yr) or
more.
In a letter dated February 27, 2007,
DOE requested that OSHA accept
occupational safety and health
regulatory authority at two locations
pursuant to the MOU on Safety and
Health Enforcement at Privatized
Facilities and Operations, dated July 25,
2000. The request was for OSHA to
accept regulatory oversight for the
construction phase of the Theory and
Computing Sciences (TCS) building at
the Argonne National Laboratory in
Illinois, as well as the transfer of
oversight for six existing buildings and
support facilities at the East Tennessee
Technology Park (ETTP) in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
OSHA’s Regional Office in Chicago,
IL, working with OSHA’s Aurora Area
Office, determined that OSHA should
accept authority for the construction
phase of the Theory and Computing
Sciences (TCS) building at the Argonne
National Laboratory in Illinois. The
Aurora Area Office has been in contact
with the DOE, as well as with the
general contractor, regarding the
construction phase of the project. These
offices are satisfied with DOE
assurances that (1) this facility is
operationally independent of DOE
activities during the construction phase,
(2) there is no likelihood that any
employee exposure to radiation will be
25 millirems per year (mrem /yr) or
more, and (3) the transfer of authority to
OSHA is free from regulatory gaps, and
does not diminish the safety and health
protection of the employees. OSHA,
therefore, accepted health and safety
regulatory authority for the construction
phase of the TCS building. When
construction of the TCS is complete,
DOE will contact OSHA to inform it of
the type of work to be performed at the
completed TCS.
OSHA’s Regional Office in Atlanta,
GA, working with the OSHA Nashville
Area Office, and the Tennessee
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (TOSHA), determined
that TOSHA is willing to accept
authority for the six existing buildings
and support facilities at the East
Tennessee Technology Park in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee that were transferred
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
by deed to the Community Reuse
Organization of East Tennessee
(CROET). TOSHA is satisfied with DOE
assurances that (1) there is no likelihood
that any employee at these facilities will
be exposed to radiation levels that will
be 25 millirems per year (mrem/yr) or
more, and (2) transfer of authority to
TOSHA is free from regulatory gaps, and
does not diminish the safety and health
protection of the employees. Therefore,
TOSHA accepted and maintains health
and safety regulatory authority over
buildings K–1007, K–1225, K–1330, K–
1400, K–1580, K–1007A, and K–1036.
Accordingly, after reviewing pertinent
information, OSHA and TOSHA, in a
letter to DOE dated December 18, 2007,
agreed to accept regulatory authority for
occupational safety and health over
these sites.
This Federal Register notice provides
public notice and serves as an
addendum to the 1992 OSHA/DOE
MOU. This document was prepared
under the direction of Thomas M.
Stohler, Acting Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. This action is
taken pursuant to section 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(g)) and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 5–2007 (72 FR
31159).
121
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
and poverty reduction, and are in
furtherance of the Act. The Act requires
the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(‘‘MCC’’) to take steps to determine the
countries that, based on their
demonstrated commitment to just and
democratic governance, economic
freedom, and investing in their people,
as well as the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth
in the country, will be eligible to receive
MCA assistance during the fiscal year.
These steps include the submission of
reports to appropriate congressional
committees and the publication of
notices in the Federal Register that
identify, among other things:
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance during
FY09 based on their per-capita income
levels and their eligibility to receive
assistance under U.S. law, and countries
that would be candidate countries but
for specified legal prohibitions on
assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22
U.S.C. 7708(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that
the Board of Directors of MCC (the
Board) will use to measure and evaluate
the relative policy performance of the
candidate countries consistent with the
requirements of section 607 of the Act
in order to select ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate
countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act, 22
U.S.C. 7708(b)); and
3. The list of countries determined by
the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ for FY09, with justification
for eligibility determination and
selection for compact negotiation,
including which of the MCA eligible
countries the Board will seek to enter
into MCA compacts (section 608(d) of
the Act, 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)).
This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC for fiscal year
2009 (FY09). It identifies countries
determined by the Board to be eligible
under section 607 of the Act for FY09
(22 U.S.C. 7706) and countries with
which the Board will seek to enter into
compacts under section 609 of the Act,
as well as the justification for such
decisions.
SUMMARY: This report is provided in
accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003,
Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the
‘‘Act’’), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
The Act authorizes the provision of
Millennium Challenge Account
(‘‘MCA’’) assistance under section 605
of the Act to countries that enter into
compacts with the United States to
support policies and programs that
advance the progress of such countries
in achieving lasting economic growth
Eligible Countries
The Board met on December 11, 2008
to select countries that will be eligible
for MCA compact assistance under
section 607 of the Act for FY09. The
Board selected the following countries
as eligible for such assistance for FY09:
Colombia, Indonesia, Jordan, Malawi,
Moldova, the Philippines, Senegal, and
Zambia.
In accordance with the Act and with
the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and
Methodology for Determining the
Signed at Washington, DC, December 15,
2008.
Thomas M. Stohler,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8–31135 Filed 12–31–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 09–04]
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
122
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2009’’
submitted to the Congress on October 9,
2008, selection was based primarily on
a country’s overall performance in
relation to three broad policy categories:
(1) ‘‘Ruling Justly’’; (2) ‘‘Encouraging
Economic Freedom’’; and (3) ‘‘Investing
in People.’’ The Board relied upon 17
transparent and independent indicators
to assess to the maximum extent
possible policy performance and
demonstrated commitment in these
three areas as a basis for determining
which countries would be eligible for
MCA compact assistance. In
determining eligibility, the Board
considered if a country performed above
the median in relation to its peers on at
least half of the indicators in the Ruling
Justly and Economic Freedom policy
categories, above the median on at least
three of five indicators in the Investing
in People policy category, and above the
median on the ‘‘Control of Corruption’’
indicator. The Board also took into
account whether the country performed
substantially below the median on any
indictor and if so, whether it is taking
appropriate action to address the
shortcomings. Scorecards reflecting
each country’s performance on the
indicators are available on MCC’s Web
site at https://www.mcc.gov.
The Board also considered whether
any adjustments should be made for
data gaps, lags, trends, or recent events
since the indicators were published, as
well as strengths or weaknesses in
particular indicators. Where
appropriate, the Board took into account
additional quantitative and qualitative
information, such as evidence of a
country’s commitment to fighting
corruption and promoting democratic
governance, and its effective protection
of human rights. In addition, the Board
considered the opportunity to reduce
poverty and promote economic growth
and poverty reduction in a country, in
light of the overall context of the
information available, as well as the
availability of appropriated funds.
Three countries were selected as
eligible for the first time in FY09.
Indonesia and Zambia, both low income
candidates, were selected under section
606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)).
Colombia, a lower middle income
candidate, was selected under section
606(b) (22 U.S.C. 7705(b)) of the Act. All
three of these countries: (1) Performed
above the median in relation to their
peers on at least half of the indicators
in each of the three policy categories; (2)
performed above the median on
corruption; and (3) in cases where they
performed substantially below the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
median on an indicator, demonstrated
that actions to address the problem are
being taken or had data that did not
accurately reflect their policy
performance.
Indonesia meets MCC’s indicator
criteria for the first time in FY09, after
having made steady progress improving
its Control of Corruption score over the
past several years. The Government of
Indonesia has demonstrated a strong
commitment to fighting corruption: anticorruption institutions have been
strengthened and high-level anticorruption investigations and
prosecutions have become increasingly
common. In addition to anti-corruption
reforms, the Government has initiated a
series of reforms to improve the
investment climate. Indonesia is in its
second year of a successful Threshold
program that has focused on reducing
corruption and improving
immunization rates.
Zambia meets MCC’s indicator criteria
for the first time this year, performing
above the median on 16 of 17 indicators.
Anti-corruption efforts are a high
priority for the Government of Zambia,
and performance on the Control of
Corruption indicator has improved in
recent years. Zambia is also nearing the
end of a successful anti-corruption
Threshold Program. In recent years,
Zambia has moved to a relatively open
environment for investment and has
demonstrated prudent macroeconomic
management.
Colombia meets the indicator criteria
for the second year in row. The
Government of Colombia has pursued a
significant reform agenda, including
major tax, civil service, and justice
sector reforms. Colombia has also been
cited as a top reformer by the World
Bank’s Doing Business report for two
years in a row. In addition, President
Uribe’s strategy to expand the
professional armed forces and promote
a strong state presence throughout the
country has yielded significant results
in terms of improving security. While
the U.S. Government provides a
substantial amount of assistance to
Colombia through other accounts, the
majority has gone toward
counternarcotics aid.
Five countries selected as eligible for
MCA assistance in FY09 were
previously selected as eligible in at least
one prior fiscal year; however, because
they have not yet signed a compact
agreement, they needed to be reselected
as eligible for FY09 funds. Four of these
countries were in the low income
category: Malawi, Moldova, the
Philippines, and Senegal. One country,
Jordan, was in the lower middle income
category.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Board reselected these countries
based on their continued performance
since their prior selection. The Board
determined that no material change has
occurred in the performance of these
countries on the indicator criteria since
the FY08 selection that would justify
not including them in the FY09 eligible
country list. Only one of the countries—
the Philippines—did not meet the
indicator criteria, performing just below
the median on the Control of Corruption
indicator; however, MCC does not
believe that the Philippines has
demonstrated a pattern of action
inconsistent with the selection criteria
(i.e., a serious policy reversal) since it
was last selected as eligible. The Board
also stressed that the Philippines must
meet the selection criteria, particularly
the Control of Corruption indicator,
before it would approve a compact.
Country partners which are
implementing compacts must show a
commitment to maintain and improve
their policy performance. Once we sign
a compact with these countries, they
will not need to be reselected annually.
MCC’s Board closely evaluates a
country’s policy performance
throughout the life of the compact.
While MCC’s indicators work well as a
transparent way of identifying those
countries that are most committed to
sound development policies and for
discerning trends over the mediumterm, they are not as well-suited for
tracking incremental progress from yearto-year. Countries may be generally
maintaining performance but not meet
the criteria in a given year due to factors
such as:
• Graduation from the low income
country category to the lower middle
income country category,
• Data improvements and revisions,
• Last year’s introduction of two new
indicators and the requirement that
countries pass three of the five
indicators in the Investing in People
category,
• Increases in peer-group medians,
• Slight declines in performance.
Once MCC has made a commitment to
a country through a signed compact,
MCC continues to work with that
country—even if it doesn’t meet the
indicator criteria each year—as long as
it has not demonstrated a pattern of
actions inconsistent with the eligibility
criteria. If it is determined that a
country has demonstrated a significant
policy reversal, the Board can hold it
accountable by applying the Suspension
and Termination Policy.
For those countries that have not
demonstrated a significant policy
reversal but do not meet the indicator
criteria, MCC will invite these countries
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
to participate or continue their
participation in MCC’s policy
improvement process. Countries
participating in the policy improvement
process are asked to develop and
implement a forward-looking action
plan that outlines the steps they plan to
take to improve performance on certain
policy criteria. They then periodically
report on progress made on the plan.
Finally, a number of countries that
performed well on the quantitative
elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on
the policy indicators) were not chosen
as eligible countries for FY09. As
discussed above, the Board considered a
variety of factors in addition to the
country’s performance on the policy
indicators in determining whether they
were appropriate candidates for
assistance (e.g., the country’s
commitment to fighting corruption and
promoting democratic governance; the
availability of appropriated funds; and
the countries in which MCC would
likely have the best opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic
growth).
Selection for Compact Negotiation
The Board also authorized MCC to
invite Indonesia, Zambia, and Colombia
to submit a proposal for a compact, as
described in section 609 of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7708) (previously eligible
countries that were reselected will not
be asked to submit another proposal for
FY09 assistance). MCC has posted
guidance on the MCC Web site (https://
www.mcc.gov) regarding the
development and submission of MCA
program proposals. Submission of a
proposal is not a guarantee that MCC
will finalize a compact with an eligible
country. Any MCA assistance provided
under section 605 of the Act will be
contingent on the successful negotiation
of a mutually agreeable compact
between the eligible country and MCC,
approval of the compact by the Board,
and availability of funds.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
John C. Mantini,
Acting General Counsel, Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
[FR Doc. E8–30965 Filed 12–31–08; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–255]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. DPR–
20 issued to Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (ENO, the licensee), for
operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant
located in Covert, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would
revise Appendix A, Technical
Specifications (TS), as they apply to the
spent fuel pool (SFP) storage
requirements in TS section 3.7.16 and
the criticality requirements for the
Region I SFP and north tilt pit fuel
storage racks, in TS section 4.3.1.1.
The proposed change, in accordance
with Title 10 of Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.68, Criticality
accident requirements, would establish
the effective neutron multiplication
factor (Keff) limits for Region I storage
racks based on analyses to maintain Keff
less than 1.0 when flooded with
unborated water, and less than, or equal
to (≤) 0.95 when flooded with water
having a minimum boron concentration
of 850 parts per million (ppm) during
normal operations. The proposed
change was evaluated for both normal
operation and accident conditions. This
proposed change provides an analysis
that does not credit boron in the
Carborundum ® poison plates and
incorporates a conservative swelling
model of the plates in the Region I
storage racks.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) Involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
123
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There is no significant increase in the
probability of an accidental misloading of
fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool racks
when considering the presence of soluble
boron in the pool water for criticality control.
Fuel assembly placement would continue to
be controlled by approved fuel handling
procedures and would be in accordance with
the TS fuel storage rack configuration
limitations.
There is no significant increase in the
consequences of the accidental misloading of
fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool racks
because the criticality analyses demonstrate
that the pool would remain subcritical with
margin following an accidental misloading if
the pool contains an adequate boron
concentration. The TS 3.7.15 limitation on
minimum spent fuel pool boron
concentration and plant procedures ensure
that an adequate boron concentration will be
maintained.
There is no significant increase in the
probability of a fuel assembly drop accident
in the spent fuel pool when considering the
presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel
pool water for criticality control. The
handling of fuel assemblies in the spent fuel
is performed in borated water. The criticality
analysis has showed the reactivity increase
with a fuel assembly drop accident in both
a vertical and horizontal orientation is
bounded by the misloading accident.
Therefore, the consequences of a fuel
assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool
would not increase significantly due to the
proposed change.
The spent fuel pool TS boron
concentration requirement in TS 3.7.15
requires a minimum of 1720 ppm which
bounds the analysis. Soluble boron has been
maintained in the spent fuel pool water as
required by TS and controlled by procedures.
The present criticality safety analyses for
Region II of the spent fuel pool credits the
same soluble boron concentration of 850 ppm
to maintain a Keff ≤ 0.95 under normal
conditions and 1350 ppm to maintain a Keff
≤ 0.95 under accident scenarios as do the
analyses for the proposed change for Region
I. Crediting soluble boron in the Region I
spent fuel pool criticality analysis would
have no effect on normal pool operation and
maintenance. Thus, there is no change to the
probability or the consequences of the boron
dilution event in the spent fuel pool.
Since soluble boron is maintained in the
spent fuel pool water, implementation of the
proposed changes would have no effect on
the normal pool operation and maintenance.
Also, since soluble boron is present in the
spent fuel pool a dilution event has always
been a possibility. The loss of substantial
amounts of soluble boron from the spent fuel
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 121-123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 09-04]
Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year
2009
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This report is provided in accordance with section 608(d)(1)
of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Public Law 108-199, Division
D, (the ``Act''), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account
(``MCA'') assistance under section 605 of the Act to countries that
enter into compacts with the United States to support policies and
programs that advance the progress of such countries in achieving
lasting economic growth and poverty reduction, and are in furtherance
of the Act. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(``MCC'') to take steps to determine the countries that, based on their
demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic
freedom, and investing in their people, as well as the opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, will be
eligible to receive MCA assistance during the fiscal year. These steps
include the submission of reports to appropriate congressional
committees and the publication of notices in the Federal Register that
identify, among other things:
1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA
assistance during FY09 based on their per-capita income levels and
their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law, and countries
that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions
on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7708(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC
(the Board) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy
performance of the candidate countries consistent with the requirements
of section 607 of the Act in order to select ``MCA eligible countries''
from among the ``candidate countries'' (section 608(b) of the Act, 22
U.S.C. 7708(b)); and
3. The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``MCA
eligible countries'' for FY09, with justification for eligibility
determination and selection for compact negotiation, including which of
the MCA eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into MCA
compacts (section 608(d) of the Act, 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)).
This is the third of the above-described reports by MCC for fiscal
year 2009 (FY09). It identifies countries determined by the Board to be
eligible under section 607 of the Act for FY09 (22 U.S.C. 7706) and
countries with which the Board will seek to enter into compacts under
section 609 of the Act, as well as the justification for such
decisions.
Eligible Countries
The Board met on December 11, 2008 to select countries that will be
eligible for MCA compact assistance under section 607 of the Act for
FY09. The Board selected the following countries as eligible for such
assistance for FY09: Colombia, Indonesia, Jordan, Malawi, Moldova, the
Philippines, Senegal, and Zambia.
In accordance with the Act and with the ``Report on the Criteria
and Methodology for Determining the
[[Page 122]]
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2009'' submitted to the Congress on October
9, 2008, selection was based primarily on a country's overall
performance in relation to three broad policy categories: (1) ``Ruling
Justly''; (2) ``Encouraging Economic Freedom''; and (3) ``Investing in
People.'' The Board relied upon 17 transparent and independent
indicators to assess to the maximum extent possible policy performance
and demonstrated commitment in these three areas as a basis for
determining which countries would be eligible for MCA compact
assistance. In determining eligibility, the Board considered if a
country performed above the median in relation to its peers on at least
half of the indicators in the Ruling Justly and Economic Freedom policy
categories, above the median on at least three of five indicators in
the Investing in People policy category, and above the median on the
``Control of Corruption'' indicator. The Board also took into account
whether the country performed substantially below the median on any
indictor and if so, whether it is taking appropriate action to address
the shortcomings. Scorecards reflecting each country's performance on
the indicators are available on MCC's Web site at https://www.mcc.gov.
The Board also considered whether any adjustments should be made
for data gaps, lags, trends, or recent events since the indicators were
published, as well as strengths or weaknesses in particular indicators.
Where appropriate, the Board took into account additional quantitative
and qualitative information, such as evidence of a country's commitment
to fighting corruption and promoting democratic governance, and its
effective protection of human rights. In addition, the Board considered
the opportunity to reduce poverty and promote economic growth and
poverty reduction in a country, in light of the overall context of the
information available, as well as the availability of appropriated
funds.
Three countries were selected as eligible for the first time in
FY09. Indonesia and Zambia, both low income candidates, were selected
under section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)). Colombia, a lower
middle income candidate, was selected under section 606(b) (22 U.S.C.
7705(b)) of the Act. All three of these countries: (1) Performed above
the median in relation to their peers on at least half of the
indicators in each of the three policy categories; (2) performed above
the median on corruption; and (3) in cases where they performed
substantially below the median on an indicator, demonstrated that
actions to address the problem are being taken or had data that did not
accurately reflect their policy performance.
Indonesia meets MCC's indicator criteria for the first time in
FY09, after having made steady progress improving its Control of
Corruption score over the past several years. The Government of
Indonesia has demonstrated a strong commitment to fighting corruption:
anti-corruption institutions have been strengthened and high-level
anti-corruption investigations and prosecutions have become
increasingly common. In addition to anti-corruption reforms, the
Government has initiated a series of reforms to improve the investment
climate. Indonesia is in its second year of a successful Threshold
program that has focused on reducing corruption and improving
immunization rates.
Zambia meets MCC's indicator criteria for the first time this year,
performing above the median on 16 of 17 indicators. Anti-corruption
efforts are a high priority for the Government of Zambia, and
performance on the Control of Corruption indicator has improved in
recent years. Zambia is also nearing the end of a successful anti-
corruption Threshold Program. In recent years, Zambia has moved to a
relatively open environment for investment and has demonstrated prudent
macroeconomic management.
Colombia meets the indicator criteria for the second year in row.
The Government of Colombia has pursued a significant reform agenda,
including major tax, civil service, and justice sector reforms.
Colombia has also been cited as a top reformer by the World Bank's
Doing Business report for two years in a row. In addition, President
Uribe's strategy to expand the professional armed forces and promote a
strong state presence throughout the country has yielded significant
results in terms of improving security. While the U.S. Government
provides a substantial amount of assistance to Colombia through other
accounts, the majority has gone toward counternarcotics aid.
Five countries selected as eligible for MCA assistance in FY09 were
previously selected as eligible in at least one prior fiscal year;
however, because they have not yet signed a compact agreement, they
needed to be reselected as eligible for FY09 funds. Four of these
countries were in the low income category: Malawi, Moldova, the
Philippines, and Senegal. One country, Jordan, was in the lower middle
income category.
The Board reselected these countries based on their continued
performance since their prior selection. The Board determined that no
material change has occurred in the performance of these countries on
the indicator criteria since the FY08 selection that would justify not
including them in the FY09 eligible country list. Only one of the
countries--the Philippines--did not meet the indicator criteria,
performing just below the median on the Control of Corruption
indicator; however, MCC does not believe that the Philippines has
demonstrated a pattern of action inconsistent with the selection
criteria (i.e., a serious policy reversal) since it was last selected
as eligible. The Board also stressed that the Philippines must meet the
selection criteria, particularly the Control of Corruption indicator,
before it would approve a compact.
Country partners which are implementing compacts must show a
commitment to maintain and improve their policy performance. Once we
sign a compact with these countries, they will not need to be
reselected annually. MCC's Board closely evaluates a country's policy
performance throughout the life of the compact. While MCC's indicators
work well as a transparent way of identifying those countries that are
most committed to sound development policies and for discerning trends
over the medium-term, they are not as well-suited for tracking
incremental progress from year-to-year. Countries may be generally
maintaining performance but not meet the criteria in a given year due
to factors such as:
Graduation from the low income country category to the
lower middle income country category,
Data improvements and revisions,
Last year's introduction of two new indicators and the
requirement that countries pass three of the five indicators in the
Investing in People category,
Increases in peer-group medians,
Slight declines in performance.
Once MCC has made a commitment to a country through a signed
compact, MCC continues to work with that country--even if it doesn't
meet the indicator criteria each year--as long as it has not
demonstrated a pattern of actions inconsistent with the eligibility
criteria. If it is determined that a country has demonstrated a
significant policy reversal, the Board can hold it accountable by
applying the Suspension and Termination Policy.
For those countries that have not demonstrated a significant policy
reversal but do not meet the indicator criteria, MCC will invite these
countries
[[Page 123]]
to participate or continue their participation in MCC's policy
improvement process. Countries participating in the policy improvement
process are asked to develop and implement a forward-looking action
plan that outlines the steps they plan to take to improve performance
on certain policy criteria. They then periodically report on progress
made on the plan.
Finally, a number of countries that performed well on the
quantitative elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on the policy
indicators) were not chosen as eligible countries for FY09. As
discussed above, the Board considered a variety of factors in addition
to the country's performance on the policy indicators in determining
whether they were appropriate candidates for assistance (e.g., the
country's commitment to fighting corruption and promoting democratic
governance; the availability of appropriated funds; and the countries
in which MCC would likely have the best opportunity to reduce poverty
and generate economic growth).
Selection for Compact Negotiation
The Board also authorized MCC to invite Indonesia, Zambia, and
Colombia to submit a proposal for a compact, as described in section
609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708) (previously eligible countries that
were reselected will not be asked to submit another proposal for FY09
assistance). MCC has posted guidance on the MCC Web site (https://
www.mcc.gov) regarding the development and submission of MCA program
proposals. Submission of a proposal is not a guarantee that MCC will
finalize a compact with an eligible country. Any MCA assistance
provided under section 605 of the Act will be contingent on the
successful negotiation of a mutually agreeable compact between the
eligible country and MCC, approval of the compact by the Board, and
availability of funds.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
John C. Mantini,
Acting General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation.
[FR Doc. E8-30965 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P