Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2012, 79712-79714 [2011-32733]

Download as PDF 79712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices travel subsistence reimbursement which a worker with receipts may claim in 2012. Signed in Washington, DC this 6th day of December, 2011. Jane Oates, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–32842 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION [MCC FR 11–15] Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2012 Millennium Challenge Corporation. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: 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). SUMMARY: Dated: December 16, 2011. Melvin F. Williams, Jr., VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge Corporation. Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2012 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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. 7707(d)(1)). The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account (‘‘MCA’’) assistance under section 605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) 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 determine the countries that will be eligible to receive MCA assistance during the fiscal year, based on their demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, as well as on the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. The Act also requires the submission of reports to appropriate congressional committees and the publication of notices in the Federal Register that identify, among other things: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 The countries that are ‘‘candidate countries’’ for MCA assistance during fiscal year 2012 (‘‘FY12’’) 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. 7707(a))); The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC (the ‘‘Board’’) will use to measure and evaluate the 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. 7707(b))); and The list of countries determined by the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible countries’’ for FY12, with justification for eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation, including with 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. 7707(d))). This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC for FY12. It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY12 and countries with which the Board will seek to enter into compacts under section 609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708), as well as the justification for such decisions. This year, for the first time, the report also identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible for MCC’s Threshold Program under section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7715). Eligible Countries The Board met on December 15, 2011, to select countries that will be eligible for MCA compact assistance under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY12. The Board selected the following countries as eligible for such assistance for FY12: Benin, Cape Verde, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, and Zambia. Criteria In accordance with the Act and with the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2012’’ formally submitted to the Congress on September 29, 2011, selection was based primarily on a country’s overall performance in three broad policy categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and Investing in People. The Board relied, to the maximum extent possible, upon PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 transparent and independent indicators to assess countries’ policy performance and demonstrated commitment in these three broad policy areas. The Board compared countries’ performance on the indicators relative to their income-level peers, evaluating them in comparison to either the group of low income countries (‘‘LIC’’) or the group of lowermiddle income countries (‘‘LMIC’’). As outlined in the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2012’’, a number of changes were adopted to update the criteria and methodology for FY12. MCC published and the Board considered both the traditional and updated scorecards this year. MCC plans to transition to exclusive use of the updated scorecard in the future, and there was deeper consideration of performance on the new scorecard for FY12. When performance differed across the scorecards, MCC outlined the reasons for the Board. Scorecards reflecting each country’s performance on the indicators are available on MCC’s Web site at https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. The Board also considered whether any adjustments should be made for data gaps, data lags, 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, investments in human development outcomes, or poverty rates. In keeping with legislative directives, the Board also considered the opportunity to reduce poverty and promote economic growth in a country, in light of the overall information available, as well as the availability of appropriated funds. This was the third year the Board considered the eligibility of countries for subsequent compacts, as permitted under section 609(k) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708(k)). MCC has no explicit preference for either new or subsequent compacts, and sees the Board’s selection decision as an annual opportunity to determine where MCC funds can be most effectively invested to support poverty reduction through economic growth in relatively well-governed, poor countries. However, in light of the fact that a large share of the best-governed low and lower-middle income countries are already MCC partners, subsequent compacts are likely to be a consistent part of MCC’s compact portfolio. E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES In determining subsequent compact eligibility, the Board considered—in addition to the criteria outlined above— the country’s performance implementing its first compact, including the nature of the country partnership with MCC, the degree to which the country has demonstrated a commitment and capacity to achieve program results, and the degree to which the country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC’s core policies and standards. To the greatest extent possible, this was assessed using pre-existing monitoring and evaluation targets and regular quarterly reporting. This information was supplemented with direct surveys and consultation with MCC staff responsible for compact implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. As with previous years, 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 FY12. MCC is aware that some stakeholders expressed concern that using the updated scorecard criteria might make the Board less selective in its eligibility decisions. This was not the case. The selection of two new compact countries and two new threshold countries is consistent with the highly selective standard the Board has previously established. Countries Newly Selected for Compact Eligibility Using the criteria described above, Benin and El Salvador were selected as eligible for MCA assistance for a second compact under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706). As a candidate country under section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(a)), Benin is one of the poorest countries in the world, but maintains relatively strong policy performance. It is particularly strong in the Ruling Justly category, where it passes all six indicators, and is recognized as a stable, democratic country in West Africa. In FY12, Benin passed the new indicator criteria, but it did not pass the old indicator criteria, due to performance in the Investing in People category. Both scorecards for Benin can be found here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. By compact conclusion, Benin delivered all core construction targets and undertook an ambitious and complex series of policy reforms. This included letting a major port concession, undertaking changes to customs and port procedures designed to reduce corruption and improve port efficiency, and making improvements in the microfinance regulatory system. These activities VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 allowed the Government of Benin to address some of their greatest development challenges and create new opportunities for economic growth. Over the next 20 years, MCC’s port investment in Benin is expected to affect a regional import-export facility that not only serves the entire population of Benin, but also provides meaningful trade capacity for Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria. Increased imports and exports could also open up the potential for new market and trade opportunities for U.S. businesses. This port project serves as an example of MCC and the Government of Benin working together to address a complex project that combined ambitious infrastructure investments and policy reform. While projects with this level of complexity are difficult, they embody MCC’s mandate of reducing poverty through economic growth in poor, wellgoverned countries. As a candidate country under section 606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7705(b)), El Salvador is a reform oriented country with a strong democracy and favorable investment policies. In FY12, El Salvador passed the new indicator criteria, but it did not pass the old indicator criteria, due to performance in the Investing in People category. Both scorecards for El Salvador can be found here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. El Salvador’s current compact is on track to achieving re-scoped objectives, and the investment is managed by a strong country-led MCA unit. At the compact mid-point, MCA-El Salvador was able to assume procurement responsibilities directly, which was a key step in resolving early delays in the procurement process, and setting the compact on track to achieve key targets. Throughout compact development and implementation, El Salvador has consistently demonstrated a commitment to take positive actions in pursuit of poverty reduction and economic growth. El Salvador is one of only four countries to be included as a pilot country for the Partnership for Growth (PFG) initiative. El Salvador’s role as a pilot PFG country makes it uniquely situated to utilize compact resources effectively. In 2011, El Salvador completed an economic constraints analysis, an exercise that forms the basis of MCC’s compact development process. There is a highcapacity and experienced MCA team already in operation, and the Government of El Salvador and U.S. Government have, through the PFG, both committed to focusing energy and resources towards combating specific constraints to growth. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79713 Countries Re-Selected To Continue Compact Development Four of the countries selected as eligible for MCA compact assistance in FY12 were previously selected as eligible. Reselection allows them to continue compact development and receive funding from FY 2012. Two of these countries are in the LIC category: Ghana and Zambia. Two countries, Georgia and Cape Verde, are in the LMIC category. The Board reselected these countries based on their continued good performance since their prior selection. The Board determined that since their initial selection, there has been no material change in their performance on the indicator criteria that indicates a serious decline in policy performance. All four countries pass both sets of scorecards. Countries Newly Selected for Threshold Program Eligibility For FY12, the Board selected Nepal and Honduras as eligible for threshold assistance. Nepal has not only been a consistently strong scorecard performer for multiple years (in FY12, it passed both scorecards), but it has also achieved a recent breakthrough in the implementation of its peace process, which is expected to help move forward the process of drafting a constitution and normalizing the political process. Honduras passes 16 of 20 indicators on the scorecard and performs just below the median on Control of Corruption. Honduras was a good partner and successfully completed a compact in 2010. Since suffering a serious setback— the political crisis of 2009—the government has taken a number of significant steps to restore the country’s positive trajectory, in particular, taking steps to improve control of corruption through improved fiscal transparency. These selections are consistent with the recently re-designed threshold program. In FY 2010, MCC completed a review of its Threshold Program and developed a body of lessons learned. Under the re-designed concept, the new threshold country programs will no longer focus explicitly on trying to move indicator scores. Rather, the program will allow countries to diagnose binding constraints to economic growth and demonstrate the capacity and political will to make difficult policy reforms in partnership with MCC. This will contribute directly to the Board’s understanding of a country’s capacity to undertake the type of policy reforms typically required to enable a compact investment to have maximum sustainable impact. E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 79714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices Ongoing Review of Partner Countries’ Policy Performance The Board also reviewed the policy performance of countries that are implementing compacts. These countries do not need to be reselected each year in order to continue implementation. Once MCC makes a commitment to a country through a compact agreement, MCC does not consider the country for reselection on an annual basis during the term of its compact. The Board emphasized the need for all partner countries to continue to improve their environment. If it is determined that a country has demonstrated a significant policy reversal, MCC can hold it accountable by applying MCC’s Suspension and Termination Policy. Selection To Initiate the Compact Process The Board also authorized MCC to invite Benin and El Salvador to submit a proposal for a second compact, as described in section 609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708). 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 (22 U.S.C. 7704) 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 the availability of funds. [FR Doc. 2011–32733 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9211–03–P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Premium Changes Based On Recharacterization of Contributions Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Policy statement. AGENCY: This policy statement addresses PBGC’s policy on accepting and responding to amended premium filings based on recharacterization of contributions. Recharacterization of contributions refers to a situation in which contributions originally designated as being for the plan year in which they were made are retroactively redesignated as being for the preceding plan year. This makes plan assets for the current year higher, and the plan’s variable-rate premium lower, than originally reported. Such recharacterization seeks not to correct a factual error but to change a valid designation and is not an appropriate jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 basis for an amended premium filing or premium refund. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion (klion.catherine@pbgc.gov), Manager, or Deborah C. Murphy (murphy.deborah@pbgc.gov), Attorney, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington DC 20005–4026; (202) 326–4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll free at 1–(800) 877–8339 and ask to be connected to (202) 326–4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the pension insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under sections 4006 and 4007 of ERISA, plans covered by title IV must pay premiums to PBGC. For single-employer plans, premiums include an amount (the variable-rate premium, or VRP) based on unfunded vested benefits (the excess, if any, of the value of vested benefits over the value of plan assets). A contribution made to a pension plan during the first eight-and-a-half months of a plan year may be characterized as being either for the current year (the plan year in which it is made) or for the prior year (the preceding plan year). The characterization affects when the contribution is first reflected in plan assets. If a contribution is characterized as being for the prior year, it is treated as a receivable (which increases plan assets) as of the beginning of the current year and thus reduces any VRP for the current year. If a contribution is characterized as being for the current year, it does not increase plan assets as of the beginning of the current year and thus does not affect VRP for the current year. The year for which a contribution is made is designated on Schedule SB (formerly Schedule B) (actuarial information) to the annual report for the plan on IRS/DOL/PBGC Form 5500. PBGC has received a number of amended premium filings, showing increased assets and decreased VRP, supported by amended Schedules SB (or B) that reflect recharacterization of contributions, and submitted with a view to obtaining premium refunds. PBGC has in practice accepted such amended filings and granted the refunds. Upon further consideration of the matter, however, PBGC has concluded that in general, such amendments should be rejected and the associated premium refunds denied. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Permitting the amendment of premium filings gives filers a way to correct mistakes in the data reported in the filings. Where the correction of erroneous data results in a lower premium, it is appropriate to refund the amount of the overpayment. However, recharacterization of a contribution does not correct a mistake; rather, it seeks to undo a valid designation of the year for which the contribution was made. Thus, it is not an appropriate basis for amending the relevant premium filing and claiming a refund.1 PBGC’s consideration of amended premium filings takes into account the facts and circumstances of each case. In general, however, as explained above, PBGC’s policy will be to reject amended filings and deny refunds based on recharacterization of contributions. For questions about premium filings, contact Robert Callahan (callahan.robert@pbgc.gov) or Bill O’Neill (oneill.bill@pbgc.gov), Financial Operations Department; (202) 346–4067. Issued in Washington, DC, this 16th day of December, 2011. Joshua Gotbaum, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. 2011–32804 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–65991; File No. 4–566] Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d– 2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amendment to the Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. Relating to the Surveillance, Investigation, and Enforcement of Insider Trading Rules December 16, 2011. Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission 1 The same principles would apply to an amended filing made with a view to obtaining a credit against the next year’s premium. E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79712-79714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32733]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 11-15]


Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 
2012

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).

    Dated: December 16, 2011.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge 
Corporation.

Report on the Selection of Eligible Countries for Fiscal Year 2012

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. 7707(d)(1)).
    The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account 
(``MCA'') assistance under section 605 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7704) 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 determine the countries that will be eligible 
to receive MCA assistance during the fiscal year, based on their 
demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic 
freedom, and investing in their people, as well as on the opportunity 
to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. The Act 
also requires the submission of reports to appropriate congressional 
committees and the publication of notices in the Federal Register that 
identify, among other things:
    The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA assistance 
during fiscal year 2012 (``FY12'') 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. 
7707(a)));
    The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC 
(the ``Board'') will use to measure and evaluate the 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. 7707(b))); and
    The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``MCA eligible 
countries'' for FY12, with justification for eligibility determination 
and selection for compact negotiation, including with 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. 7707(d))).
    This is the third of the above-described reports by MCC for FY12. 
It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible under 
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY12 and countries with 
which the Board will seek to enter into compacts under section 609 of 
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708), as well as the justification for such 
decisions. This year, for the first time, the report also identifies 
countries determined by the Board to be eligible for MCC's Threshold 
Program under section 616 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7715).

Eligible Countries

    The Board met on December 15, 2011, to select countries that will 
be eligible for MCA compact assistance under section 607 of the Act (22 
U.S.C. 7706) for FY12. The Board selected the following countries as 
eligible for such assistance for FY12: Benin, Cape Verde, El Salvador, 
Georgia, Ghana, and Zambia.

Criteria

    In accordance with the Act and with the ``Report on the Criteria 
and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries 
for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2012'' 
formally submitted to the Congress on September 29, 2011, selection was 
based primarily on a country's overall performance in three broad 
policy categories: Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and 
Investing in People. The Board relied, to the maximum extent possible, 
upon transparent and independent indicators to assess countries' policy 
performance and demonstrated commitment in these three broad policy 
areas. The Board compared countries' performance on the indicators 
relative to their income-level peers, evaluating them in comparison to 
either the group of low income countries (``LIC'') or the group of 
lower-middle income countries (``LMIC'').
    As outlined in the ``Report on the Criteria and Methodology for 
Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium 
Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2012'', a number of changes 
were adopted to update the criteria and methodology for FY12. MCC 
published and the Board considered both the traditional and updated 
scorecards this year. MCC plans to transition to exclusive use of the 
updated scorecard in the future, and there was deeper consideration of 
performance on the new scorecard for FY12. When performance differed 
across the scorecards, MCC outlined the reasons for the Board. 
Scorecards reflecting each country's performance on the indicators are 
available on MCC's Web site at https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards.
    The Board also considered whether any adjustments should be made 
for data gaps, data lags, 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, investments in human development outcomes, or 
poverty rates. In keeping with legislative directives, the Board also 
considered the opportunity to reduce poverty and promote economic 
growth in a country, in light of the overall information available, as 
well as the availability of appropriated funds.
    This was the third year the Board considered the eligibility of 
countries for subsequent compacts, as permitted under section 609(k) of 
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708(k)). MCC has no explicit preference for either 
new or subsequent compacts, and sees the Board's selection decision as 
an annual opportunity to determine where MCC funds can be most 
effectively invested to support poverty reduction through economic 
growth in relatively well-governed, poor countries. However, in light 
of the fact that a large share of the best-governed low and lower-
middle income countries are already MCC partners, subsequent compacts 
are likely to be a consistent part of MCC's compact portfolio.

[[Page 79713]]

    In determining subsequent compact eligibility, the Board 
considered--in addition to the criteria outlined above--the country's 
performance implementing its first compact, including the nature of the 
country partnership with MCC, the degree to which the country has 
demonstrated a commitment and capacity to achieve program results, and 
the degree to which the country has implemented the compact in 
accordance with MCC's core policies and standards. To the greatest 
extent possible, this was assessed using pre-existing monitoring and 
evaluation targets and regular quarterly reporting. This information 
was supplemented with direct surveys and consultation with MCC staff 
responsible for compact implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
    As with previous years, 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 FY12. MCC 
is aware that some stakeholders expressed concern that using the 
updated scorecard criteria might make the Board less selective in its 
eligibility decisions. This was not the case. The selection of two new 
compact countries and two new threshold countries is consistent with 
the highly selective standard the Board has previously established.

Countries Newly Selected for Compact Eligibility

    Using the criteria described above, Benin and El Salvador were 
selected as eligible for MCA assistance for a second compact under 
section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
    As a candidate country under section 606(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 
7705(a)), Benin is one of the poorest countries in the world, but 
maintains relatively strong policy performance. It is particularly 
strong in the Ruling Justly category, where it passes all six 
indicators, and is recognized as a stable, democratic country in West 
Africa. In FY12, Benin passed the new indicator criteria, but it did 
not pass the old indicator criteria, due to performance in the 
Investing in People category. Both scorecards for Benin can be found 
here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. By compact conclusion, Benin 
delivered all core construction targets and undertook an ambitious and 
complex series of policy reforms. This included letting a major port 
concession, undertaking changes to customs and port procedures designed 
to reduce corruption and improve port efficiency, and making 
improvements in the microfinance regulatory system. These activities 
allowed the Government of Benin to address some of their greatest 
development challenges and create new opportunities for economic 
growth. Over the next 20 years, MCC's port investment in Benin is 
expected to affect a regional import-export facility that not only 
serves the entire population of Benin, but also provides meaningful 
trade capacity for Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria. Increased 
imports and exports could also open up the potential for new market and 
trade opportunities for U.S. businesses.
    This port project serves as an example of MCC and the Government of 
Benin working together to address a complex project that combined 
ambitious infrastructure investments and policy reform. While projects 
with this level of complexity are difficult, they embody MCC's mandate 
of reducing poverty through economic growth in poor, well-governed 
countries.
    As a candidate country under section 606(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 
7705(b)), El Salvador is a reform oriented country with a strong 
democracy and favorable investment policies. In FY12, El Salvador 
passed the new indicator criteria, but it did not pass the old 
indicator criteria, due to performance in the Investing in People 
category. Both scorecards for El Salvador can be found here: https://www.mcc.gov/scorecards. El Salvador's current compact is on track to 
achieving re-scoped objectives, and the investment is managed by a 
strong country-led MCA unit. At the compact mid-point, MCA-El Salvador 
was able to assume procurement responsibilities directly, which was a 
key step in resolving early delays in the procurement process, and 
setting the compact on track to achieve key targets. Throughout compact 
development and implementation, El Salvador has consistently 
demonstrated a commitment to take positive actions in pursuit of 
poverty reduction and economic growth. El Salvador is one of only four 
countries to be included as a pilot country for the Partnership for 
Growth (PFG) initiative. El Salvador's role as a pilot PFG country 
makes it uniquely situated to utilize compact resources effectively. In 
2011, El Salvador completed an economic constraints analysis, an 
exercise that forms the basis of MCC's compact development process. 
There is a high-capacity and experienced MCA team already in operation, 
and the Government of El Salvador and U.S. Government have, through the 
PFG, both committed to focusing energy and resources towards combating 
specific constraints to growth.

Countries Re-Selected To Continue Compact Development

    Four of the countries selected as eligible for MCA compact 
assistance in FY12 were previously selected as eligible. Reselection 
allows them to continue compact development and receive funding from FY 
2012. Two of these countries are in the LIC category: Ghana and Zambia. 
Two countries, Georgia and Cape Verde, are in the LMIC category.
    The Board reselected these countries based on their continued good 
performance since their prior selection. The Board determined that 
since their initial selection, there has been no material change in 
their performance on the indicator criteria that indicates a serious 
decline in policy performance. All four countries pass both sets of 
scorecards.

Countries Newly Selected for Threshold Program Eligibility

    For FY12, the Board selected Nepal and Honduras as eligible for 
threshold assistance. Nepal has not only been a consistently strong 
scorecard performer for multiple years (in FY12, it passed both 
scorecards), but it has also achieved a recent breakthrough in the 
implementation of its peace process, which is expected to help move 
forward the process of drafting a constitution and normalizing the 
political process. Honduras passes 16 of 20 indicators on the scorecard 
and performs just below the median on Control of Corruption. Honduras 
was a good partner and successfully completed a compact in 2010. Since 
suffering a serious setback--the political crisis of 2009--the 
government has taken a number of significant steps to restore the 
country's positive trajectory, in particular, taking steps to improve 
control of corruption through improved fiscal transparency.
    These selections are consistent with the recently re-designed 
threshold program. In FY 2010, MCC completed a review of its Threshold 
Program and developed a body of lessons learned. Under the re-designed 
concept, the new threshold country programs will no longer focus 
explicitly on trying to move indicator scores. Rather, the program will 
allow countries to diagnose binding constraints to economic growth and 
demonstrate the capacity and political will to make difficult policy 
reforms in partnership with MCC. This will contribute directly to the 
Board's understanding of a country's capacity to undertake the type of 
policy reforms typically required to enable a compact investment to 
have maximum sustainable impact.

[[Page 79714]]

Ongoing Review of Partner Countries' Policy Performance

    The Board also reviewed the policy performance of countries that 
are implementing compacts. These countries do not need to be reselected 
each year in order to continue implementation. Once MCC makes a 
commitment to a country through a compact agreement, MCC does not 
consider the country for reselection on an annual basis during the term 
of its compact. The Board emphasized the need for all partner countries 
to continue to improve their environment. If it is determined that a 
country has demonstrated a significant policy reversal, MCC can hold it 
accountable by applying MCC's Suspension and Termination Policy.

Selection To Initiate the Compact Process

    The Board also authorized MCC to invite Benin and El Salvador to 
submit a proposal for a second compact, as described in section 609 of 
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708).
    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 (22 U.S.C. 7704) 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 the 
availability of funds.

[FR Doc. 2011-32733 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.