2012 Fiscal Transparency Report, 14149-14151 [2013-04914]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices
The number assigned to this disaster
for physical damage is 13500 8 and for
economic injury is 13501 0.
The State which received an EIDL
Declaration # is West Virginia.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers 59002 and 59008)
Dated: February 25, 2013.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
Percent
Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere .....................................
For Economic Injury:
Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere .....................................
2.875
2.875
The number assigned to this disaster
for physical damage is 13502B and for
economic injury is 13503B.
[FR Doc. 2013–04835 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers 59002 and 59008)
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Disaster Declaration #13502 and #13503]
Louisiana Disaster #LA–00050
[FR Doc. 2013–04834 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am]
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
This is a Notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for Public Assistance Only for
the State of Louisiana (FEMA–4102–
DR), dated 02/22/2013.
Incident: Severe storms and flooding.
Incident Period: 01/08/2013 through
01/17/2013.
Effective Date: 02/22/2013.
Physical Loan Application Deadline
Date: 04/23/2013.
Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan
Application Deadline Date: 11/22/2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan
applications to: U.S. Small Business
Administration, Processing and
Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050,
Washington, DC 20416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that as a result of the
President’s major disaster declaration on
02/22/2013, Private Non-Profit
organizations that provide essential
services of governmental nature may file
disaster loan applications at the address
listed above or other locally announced
locations.
The following areas have been
determined to be adversely affected by
the disaster:
Primary Counties: Acadia, Catahoula,
Concordia, East Carroll, Evangeline,
Franklin, Jefferson, Livingston,
Madison, Saint Landry, Vermilion.
The Interest Rates are:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Percent
For Physical Damage:
Non-Profit Organizations With
Credit Available Elsewhere ...
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Mar 01, 2013
James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster
Assistance.
2.875
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 8213]
2012 Fiscal Transparency Report
Department of State.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of State
hereby presents the findings from the
2012 Fiscal Transparency review
process in its first annual Fiscal
Transparency Report. This report
describes the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency developed by the
Department of State, identifies the
countries that did not meet the
standard, and indicates whether those
countries made progress toward meeting
the standard.
SUMMARY:
FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report
The Department of State hereby
presents the findings from the 2012
Fiscal Transparency review process in
its first annual Fiscal Transparency
Report. Fiscal transparency is a critical
element of effective public financial
management, helps build market
confidence, and sets the stage for
economic sustainability. Transparency
also provides a window into
government budgets for citizens of any
country, allowing them to hold their
leadership accountable. The
International Monetary Fund defines
fiscal transparency as ‘‘the clarity,
reliability, frequency, timeliness, and
relevance of public fiscal reporting and
the openness to the public of the
government’s fiscal policy-making
process.’’
For the United States, reviews of the
fiscal transparency of countries that
receive U.S. assistance via their central
governments help to ensure that U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14149
taxpayer money is used appropriately
and creates a dialogue with
governments to improve their fiscal
performance, leading to greater
macroeconomic stability and better
development outcomes. This year, the
Department assessed more than 140
countries that received or were
considered for U.S. foreign assistance
via their central governments.
The Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L.
112–74) (SFOAA) prohibits U.S.
assistance to the central government of
any country that does not meet
minimum standards of fiscal
transparency, unless the Secretary of
State determines that a waiver is
important to the U.S. national interest.
For countries that did not meet the
minimum standards, the Department of
State also determined whether those
governments made progress toward
meeting those standards.
This report describes the minimum
standards of fiscal transparency
developed by the Department of State,
identifies the countries that did not
meet the standard, and indicates
whether those countries made progress
toward meeting the standard.
Fiscal Transparency Review Process
The Department of State assessed
fiscal transparency in more than 140
countries in which central governments
were receiving U.S. foreign assistance.
The Department examines whether
countries meet minimum standards of
fiscal transparency, and whether the
country has made progress in meeting
those standards. Progress on fiscal
transparency often includes publishing
adequate budget documents, improved
monitoring, or more robust accounting
procedures that detail expenditures.
The Department used information
from U.S. embassies and consulates and
international organizations such as the
International Monetary Fund and
multilateral development banks. U.S.
diplomatic missions engaged with
foreign government officials,
nongovernmental and international
organizations, and civil society to obtain
information for these assessments.
Using this information, for countries
that did not meet the standard, U.S.
diplomatic missions developed and
implemented actions plans to work with
governments, international
organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) to improve the
availability, reliability, and content of
budget documentation. Such plans
present short and long-term actions and
goals that the foreign government can
take, often with assistance from
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
14150
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices
multilateral institutions such as the
World Bank and IMF already engaged in
similar efforts, to improve budget
transparency. Examples include
implementing a financial management
system to help provide internal controls,
approving freedom of information
legislation, funding NGOs to provide
training on budget oversight, or
coordinating with international
organizations to monitor budget
transparency issues.
Minimum Standards of Fiscal
Transparency
The SFOAA provides that the
minimum standards of fiscal
transparency developed by the
Department shall include standards for
the public disclosure of budget
documentation, including:
• Receipts and expenditures by
ministry.
• Government contracts and licenses
for natural resource extraction, to
include bidding and concession
allocation practices.
The fiscal transparency review
process evaluated whether the central
governments of countries receiving U.S.
foreign assistance publicly disclosed
budget documentation and related data,
including receipts and expenditures by
ministry. The review also assessed the
existence and public disclosure of
standards for government contracts and
licenses for natural resource extraction,
including bidding and concession
allocation practices. To meet the
minimum standards of fiscal
transparency, budget data generally
should be:
• Substantially Complete: Budget
documents should provide a
substantially full picture of a country’s
revenue streams, including natural
resource revenues, and planned
expenditures. Therefore, a published
budget that does not include significant
cash or non-cash resources, including
foreign aid or the balances of special
accounts or off-budget accounts, would
not be considered transparent. This
picture should include, in some fashion,
financial results of state-owned
enterprises. The review process
recognizes that military and/or
intelligence budgets are often not
publicly available for national security
reasons.
• Reliable: Budget documents and
data should be reliable, meaning that
they are timely and accurate. Actual
receipts and expenditures should
reasonably correlate to the budget plan.
Significant departures from planned
receipts and expenditures should be
explained in supplementary budget
documentation that is publicly
disclosed in a timely manner.
• Transparent: ‘‘Public disclosure’’ is
broadly interpreted to mean that the
information is available on-line, at
government offices or libraries, on
request from the ministry, or for
purchase (nominal fee) at a government
office.
The Department recognizes that the
specific circumstances and practices
that undermine fiscal transparency
differ between countries. The review
process takes a tailored approach in
evaluating countries to make a
determination of whether or not the
central government provides an
adequate level of budget detail to enable
participation, monitoring, and feedback
from civil society groups.
Conclusions of Review Process
For fiscal year 2012, the Department
reviewed more than 140 countries
where central governments receive U.S.
government assistance to determine
which countries did not meet minimum
transparency standards. Of those 140
countries, 34 were determined to be
non-transparent; 32 of those nontransparent countries made progress in
meeting the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency.
The following table lists the 34
countries found non-transparent,
including information on whether the
Department made a determination of
progress or no progress.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FY 2012 FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT PURSUANT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012 (DIV. I, PUB. L. 112–74) (SFOAA)
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Countries whose central governments received or were considered for
SFOAA assistance assessed to be non-transparent
Progress
No
progress
Afghanistan ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Algeria ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Angola ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Burma ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Cambodia .................................................................................................................................................................................
Cameroon ................................................................................................................................................................................
Central African Republic ..........................................................................................................................................................
Chad ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Cote d’Ivoire .............................................................................................................................................................................
Dominican Republic .................................................................................................................................................................
DRC .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Egypt ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Equatorial Guinea ....................................................................................................................................................................
Ethiopia ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Gabon ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Guinea .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Guinea Bissau .........................................................................................................................................................................
Haiti ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Kyrgyz Republic .......................................................................................................................................................................
Lebanon ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Libya ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Nicaragua .................................................................................................................................................................................
Niger ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Saudi Arabia ............................................................................................................................................................................
Somalia ....................................................................................................................................................................................
South Sudan ............................................................................................................................................................................
Swaziland .................................................................................................................................................................................
Suriname ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Tajikistan ..................................................................................................................................................................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Mar 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
14151
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FY 2012 FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT PURSUANT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012 (DIV. I, PUB. L. 112–74) (SFOAA)—Continued
Countries whose central governments received or were considered for
SFOAA assistance assessed to be non-transparent
Progress
No
progress
Turkmenistan ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Uzbekistan ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Vietnam ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Yemen ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Zimbabwe ................................................................................................................................................................................
X
X
X
................
X
................
................
................
X
................
Dated: February 15, 2013.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management
and Resources, Department of State.
This delegation of authority shall be
published in the Federal Register.
Dated: January 29, 2013.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2013–04914 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–07–P
[FR Doc. 2013–04915 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Delegation by the Secretary of State to
the Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Visa Services of the
Authority To Make Findings of
Extraordinary Circumstance for Aliens
Who Remain in the United States
Beyond Their Authorized Periods
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Delegation of Authority No. 347]
[Public Notice 8212]
By virtue of the authority vested in
me as Secretary of State, including
Section 1 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C.
2651a), I hereby delegate to the
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs
and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Visa Services, to the extent authorized
by law, the authority under Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) section
222(g)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1202(g)(2)(B), to
make findings that extraordinary
circumstances exist, relative to
circumstances that may be confronted
by one or more aliens, to ensure that the
alien would not be denied admission by
operation of section 222(g) on a
subsequent application for admission,
when they remained in the United
States beyond their authorized period of
stay.
Any act, executive order, regulation,
or procedure subject to, or affected by,
this delegation shall be deemed to be
such act, executive order, regulation, or
procedure as amended from time to
time.
Notwithstanding this delegation of
authority, the Secretary, the Deputy
Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for
Management and Resources, and the
Under Secretary for Management may at
any time exercise any authority or
function delegated by this delegation of
authority.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Mar 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Department of State Performance
Review Board Members
In accordance with section 4314(c)(4)
of 5 United States Code, the Department
of State has appointed the following
individuals to the Department of State
Performance Review Board for Senior
Executive Service members:
Dawn McCall, Chairperson,
Coordinator, Office of International
Information Programs, Department of
State;
Gerard White, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Conflict and
Stabilization Operations, Department
of State;
Bathsheba Crocker, Principal Deputy
Director, Office of Policy Planning,
Department of State.
Dated: February 25, 2013.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield,
Director General of the Foreign Service and
Director of Human Resources, Department
of State.
[FR Doc. 2013–04913 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Meeting: RTCA Program Management
Committee
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program
Management Committee Meeting.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The FAA is issuing this notice
to advise the public of a meeting of
RTCA Program Management Committee.
DATES: The meeting will be held March
20, 2013, from 8:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC, 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW.,
Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by
telephone at (202) 833–9339, fax at (202)
833–9434, or Web site at https://
www.rtca.org.
SUMMARY:
Pursuant
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby
given for a Program Management
Committee meeting. The agenda will
include the following:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
March 20, 2013
• Welcome and Introductions.
• Review/Approve Meeting Summary.
• Publication Consideration/Approval
• Final Draft, New Document,
Guidelines for Verification and
Validation of Aerodrome Mapping
Databases (AMDB) Aerodrome
Surface Routing Networks (ASRN)
for Routing Application, prepared
by SC–217.
• Final Draft, New Document,
Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS)
for the Aeronautical Mobile-satellite
(R) Service (AMS(R)S), prepared by
SC–222.
• Final Draft, Change 2 to DO–185B,
Minimum Operational Standards
for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance System II (TCAS II),
prepared by SC–147.
• Final Draft, Revised DO–300,
Minimum Operational Performance
Standards (MOPS) for Traffic Alert
and Collision Avoidance System II
(TCAS II) Hybrid Surveillance,
prepared by SC–147.
• Integration and Coordination
Committee (ICC)—Report
• Review/Approve, Aircraft Systemlevel Installation Guidance (ASIG)
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14149-14151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04914]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 8213]
2012 Fiscal Transparency Report
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the
2012 Fiscal Transparency review process in its first annual Fiscal
Transparency Report. This report describes the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency developed by the Department of State, identifies
the countries that did not meet the standard, and indicates whether
those countries made progress toward meeting the standard.
FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report
The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the 2012
Fiscal Transparency review process in its first annual Fiscal
Transparency Report. Fiscal transparency is a critical element of
effective public financial management, helps build market confidence,
and sets the stage for economic sustainability. Transparency also
provides a window into government budgets for citizens of any country,
allowing them to hold their leadership accountable. The International
Monetary Fund defines fiscal transparency as ``the clarity,
reliability, frequency, timeliness, and relevance of public fiscal
reporting and the openness to the public of the government's fiscal
policy-making process.''
For the United States, reviews of the fiscal transparency of
countries that receive U.S. assistance via their central governments
help to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is used appropriately and
creates a dialogue with governments to improve their fiscal
performance, leading to greater macroeconomic stability and better
development outcomes. This year, the Department assessed more than 140
countries that received or were considered for U.S. foreign assistance
via their central governments.
The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74) (SFOAA) prohibits
U.S. assistance to the central government of any country that does not
meet minimum standards of fiscal transparency, unless the Secretary of
State determines that a waiver is important to the U.S. national
interest. For countries that did not meet the minimum standards, the
Department of State also determined whether those governments made
progress toward meeting those standards.
This report describes the minimum standards of fiscal transparency
developed by the Department of State, identifies the countries that did
not meet the standard, and indicates whether those countries made
progress toward meeting the standard.
Fiscal Transparency Review Process
The Department of State assessed fiscal transparency in more than
140 countries in which central governments were receiving U.S. foreign
assistance. The Department examines whether countries meet minimum
standards of fiscal transparency, and whether the country has made
progress in meeting those standards. Progress on fiscal transparency
often includes publishing adequate budget documents, improved
monitoring, or more robust accounting procedures that detail
expenditures.
The Department used information from U.S. embassies and consulates
and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund
and multilateral development banks. U.S. diplomatic missions engaged
with foreign government officials, nongovernmental and international
organizations, and civil society to obtain information for these
assessments.
Using this information, for countries that did not meet the
standard, U.S. diplomatic missions developed and implemented actions
plans to work with governments, international organizations, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to improve the availability,
reliability, and content of budget documentation. Such plans present
short and long-term actions and goals that the foreign government can
take, often with assistance from
[[Page 14150]]
multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and IMF already
engaged in similar efforts, to improve budget transparency. Examples
include implementing a financial management system to help provide
internal controls, approving freedom of information legislation,
funding NGOs to provide training on budget oversight, or coordinating
with international organizations to monitor budget transparency issues.
Minimum Standards of Fiscal Transparency
The SFOAA provides that the minimum standards of fiscal
transparency developed by the Department shall include standards for
the public disclosure of budget documentation, including:
Receipts and expenditures by ministry.
Government contracts and licenses for natural resource
extraction, to include bidding and concession allocation practices.
The fiscal transparency review process evaluated whether the
central governments of countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance
publicly disclosed budget documentation and related data, including
receipts and expenditures by ministry. The review also assessed the
existence and public disclosure of standards for government contracts
and licenses for natural resource extraction, including bidding and
concession allocation practices. To meet the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency, budget data generally should be:
Substantially Complete: Budget documents should provide a
substantially full picture of a country's revenue streams, including
natural resource revenues, and planned expenditures. Therefore, a
published budget that does not include significant cash or non-cash
resources, including foreign aid or the balances of special accounts or
off-budget accounts, would not be considered transparent. This picture
should include, in some fashion, financial results of state-owned
enterprises. The review process recognizes that military and/or
intelligence budgets are often not publicly available for national
security reasons.
Reliable: Budget documents and data should be reliable,
meaning that they are timely and accurate. Actual receipts and
expenditures should reasonably correlate to the budget plan.
Significant departures from planned receipts and expenditures should be
explained in supplementary budget documentation that is publicly
disclosed in a timely manner.
Transparent: ``Public disclosure'' is broadly interpreted
to mean that the information is available on-line, at government
offices or libraries, on request from the ministry, or for purchase
(nominal fee) at a government office.
The Department recognizes that the specific circumstances and
practices that undermine fiscal transparency differ between countries.
The review process takes a tailored approach in evaluating countries to
make a determination of whether or not the central government provides
an adequate level of budget detail to enable participation, monitoring,
and feedback from civil society groups.
Conclusions of Review Process
For fiscal year 2012, the Department reviewed more than 140
countries where central governments receive U.S. government assistance
to determine which countries did not meet minimum transparency
standards. Of those 140 countries, 34 were determined to be non-
transparent; 32 of those non-transparent countries made progress in
meeting the minimum standards of fiscal transparency.
The following table lists the 34 countries found non-transparent,
including information on whether the Department made a determination of
progress or no progress.
U.S. Department of State FY 2012 Fiscal Transparency Report Pursuant to
the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74) (SFOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries whose central governments received or
were considered for SFOAA assistance assessed Progress No
to be non-transparent progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan..................................... X ..........
Algeria......................................... X ..........
Angola.......................................... X ..........
Burma........................................... X ..........
Cambodia........................................ X ..........
Cameroon........................................ X ..........
Central African Republic........................ X ..........
Chad............................................ X ..........
Cote d'Ivoire................................... X ..........
Dominican Republic.............................. X ..........
DRC............................................. X ..........
Egypt........................................... X ..........
Equatorial Guinea............................... X ..........
Ethiopia........................................ X ..........
Gabon........................................... X ..........
Guinea.......................................... X ..........
Guinea Bissau................................... X ..........
Haiti........................................... X ..........
Kyrgyz Republic................................. X ..........
Lebanon......................................... X ..........
Libya........................................... X ..........
Nicaragua....................................... .......... X
Niger........................................... X ..........
Saudi Arabia.................................... X ..........
Somalia......................................... X ..........
South Sudan..................................... X ..........
Swaziland....................................... X ..........
Suriname........................................ X ..........
Tajikistan...................................... X ..........
[[Page 14151]]
Turkmenistan.................................... X ..........
Uzbekistan...................................... X ..........
Vietnam......................................... X ..........
Yemen........................................... .......... X
Zimbabwe........................................ X ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: February 15, 2013.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Department of
State.
[FR Doc. 2013-04914 Filed 3-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
