FY 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report Pursuant to Section 7031(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74), as Carried Forward by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113-6); 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report, 16852-16854 [2014-06694]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16852
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices
proposed market wide parameter will
protect ISE and ISE Gemini market
makers from inadvertent exposure to
excessive risk across both markets.
Reducing such risk will enable market
makers to enter quotations without any
fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive
risk, which in turn will benefit investors
through increased liquidity for the
execution of their orders. Such
increased liquidity benefits investors
because they receive better prices and
because it lowers volatility in the
options market.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
The proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on competition. The
proposed rule change is meant to
protect market makers from inadvertent
exposure to excessive risk when trading
on both ISE and ISE Gemini.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change
will have no impact on competition.
Market makers are not required to use
the proposed functionality and may use
their own risk-management systems and
enter out-of-range values so that the
Exchange-provided parameters will not
be triggered. Accordingly, the proposal
does not require members to use or
manage their risk using an Exchangeprovided tool.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants or Others
The Exchange has not solicited, and
does not intend to solicit, comments on
this proposed rule change. The
Exchange has not received any
unsolicited written comments from
members or other interested parties.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the publication date
of this notice in the Federal Register or
within such longer period up to 90 days
(i) as the Commission may designate if
it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons
for so finding or (ii) as to which the selfregulatory organization consents, the
Commission will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove
such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Electronic Comments
FY 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report
Pursuant to Section 7031(B) of the
Department of State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub.
L. 112–74), as Carried Forward by the
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113–6); 2013
Fiscal Transparency Report
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
ISE–2014–09 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–ISE–2014–09. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in
the Commission’s Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549–1090, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the ISE. All
comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–ISE–2014–09, and should
be submitted on or before April 16,
2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.11
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–06599 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
PO 00000
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Department of State.
Notice.
AGENCY:
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
11 17
[Public Notice 8673]
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
The Department of State
hereby presents the findings from the
FY 2013 fiscal transparency review
process in its second annual Fiscal
Transparency Report. This report
describes the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency developed by the
Department of State, identifies countries
that did not meet these standards, and
indicates whether those countries made
progress towards meeting these
standards.
SUMMARY:
Fiscal Transparency
Fiscal transparency is a critical
element of effective public financial
management, helps in building market
confidence, and sets the stage for
economic sustainability. Transparency
also provides a window into
government budgets for citizens of any
country, helping them to hold their
leadership accountable. The
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
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.’’
Annual 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 to sustain a dialogue with
governments to improve their fiscal
performance, leading to greater
macroeconomic stability and better
development outcomes.
Section 7031(b)(1) of the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112–74) (SFOAA),
as carried forward by the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
(Div. F, Pub. L. 113–6) (CR), restricts
U.S. assistance to the central
government of any country that does not
meet the Department’s minimum
standards of fiscal transparency, unless
the Secretary of State, or his designee,
determines that a waiver is important to
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
16853
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices
the U.S. national interest. The Deputy
Secretary of State made those
determinations for FY2013. For
countries that did not meet the
minimum standards, the Deputy
Secretary 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.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Fiscal Transparency Review Process
In FY 2013, the Department of State
assessed fiscal transparency in 49
countries that were potential
beneficiaries of FY 2013 foreign
assistance funds via their central
governments, determined whether the
minimum standards were met, and
identified measures those countries had
implemented to make progress towards
meeting the standards. Progress on fiscal
transparency can mean publishing
adequate budget documents, adopting
more robust accounting procedures to
verify expenditures, or other measures
to improve public financial
management.
The Department considered
information from U.S. embassies and
consulates, international organizations
such as the IMF and multilateral
development banks, and from civil
society organizations. U.S. diplomatic
missions engaged with foreign
government officials, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), international
organizations, and civil society to obtain
information for these assessments.
When a country does not meet the
minimum standards of fiscal
transparency, U.S. diplomatic missions,
with input and assistance from USAID,
develop and implement action plans to
work with governments, international
organizations, and NGOs to improve the
availability, reliability, and content of a
country’s budget documents. Such plans
present short and long-term actions that
the foreign government can take, often
with assistance from multilateral
institutions such as the World Bank and
IMF, to improve budget transparency.
Examples of actions from previous plans
include implementing a financial
management system to assist in
improving internal controls; approving
freedom of information legislation;
funding NGOs to provide training on
budget oversight; and coordinating with
international organizations to monitor
budget transparency issues.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Minimum Standards of Fiscal
Transparency
The SFOAA, as carried forward by the
CR, 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 FY 2013 fiscal transparency
review process evaluated whether the
central governments of countries
receiving U.S. foreign assistance
publicly disclosed budget documents
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. In addition, 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. Budget
documents also should disclose, in
some fashion, financial results of stateowned enterprises. The review process
recognizes that military and/or
intelligence budgets are often not
publicly available for national security
reasons.
• Reliable: Budget documents and
related data are considered reliable if
they are accurate and disseminated on
time. Actual receipts and expenditures
should be reasonably correlated to the
budget plan, and significant departures
from planned activities should be
explained in supplementary budget
documents and publicly disclosed in a
timely manner.
• Transparent: Budgets fulfill the
‘‘public disclosure’’ criteria if they are
broadly available on-line, at government
offices or libraries, on request from the
ministry, or for purchase at a nominal
fee at a government office.
The Department recognizes that the
specific circumstances and practices of
fiscal transparency differ between
countries. The review process takes a
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
tailored approach in evaluating
countries to make a determination of
whether the central government
provides an adequate level of budget
detail to enable participation,
monitoring, and feedback from civil
society groups.
Conclusions of Review Process
In FY 2013, the Department reviewed
49 countries that were potential
beneficiaries of FY 2013 U.S. foreign
assistance via their central governments,
assessed whether they met the
Department’s minimum standards of
fiscal transparency and identified
measures those countries had
implemented to make progress towards
meeting the minimum standards. The
Department concluded that 34 of the 49
countries did not meet the minimum
standards of fiscal transparency, and
that 27 non-transparent countries made
progress in meeting the minimum
standards of fiscal transparency.
The following table lists the 34
countries that were found to be nontransparent and whether they made
progress toward meeting the minimum
standards:
Countries whose
central governments received
or were considered for assistance assessed
to be non-transparent
Afghanistan .......
Algeria ...............
Burma ...............
Cambodia .........
Cameroon .........
Central African
Republic ........
Chad .................
Dominican Republic .............
DRC ..................
Egypt .................
Ethiopia .............
Fiji .....................
Gabon ...............
Gambia .............
Guinea ..............
Haiti ...................
Lebanon ............
Libya .................
Madagascar ......
Nicaragua .........
Niger .................
Nigeria ..............
Republic of
Congo ............
Saudi Arabia .....
Somalia .............
South Sudan .....
Suriname ..........
Swaziland .........
Tajikistan ...........
Turkmenistan ....
Ukraine .............
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
Progress
No progress
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
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
16854
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Notices
State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite
5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Countries whose
central governments received
or were considered for assistance assessed
to be non-transparent
Progress
No progress
Uzbekistan ........
Yemen ..............
Zimbabwe .........
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Heather Higginbottom,
Deputy Secretary for Management and
Resources, Department of State.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dated: March 19, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Educational and Cultural Affairs,
Department of State.
Research, Engineering And
Development Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting
[FR Doc. 2014–06723 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[FR Doc. 2014–06694 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
Notice of Applications for Certificates
of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed
Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q)
During the Week Ending March 8, 2014
BILLING CODE 4710–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 8672]
Culturally Significant Objects Imported
for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Terra
Cotta Warriors: The Emperor’s Painted
Army, Directly From China’s Shaanxi
Province’’ Exhibition
Notice is hereby given of the
following determinations: Pursuant to
the authority vested in me by the Act of
October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C.
2459), Executive Order 12047 of March
27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et
seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of
October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority
No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as
appropriate, Delegation of Authority No.
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby
determine that the objects to be
included in the exhibition ‘‘Terra Cotta
Warriors: The Emperor’s Painted Army,
Directly from China’s Shaanxi
Province,’’ imported from abroad for
temporary exhibition within the United
States, are of cultural significance. The
objects are imported pursuant to a loan
agreement with the foreign owner or
custodian. I also determine that the
exhibition or display of the exhibit
objects at the Children’s Museum of
Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, from on
or about May 9, 2014, until on or about
November 2, 2014, and at possible
additional exhibitions or venues yet to
be determined, is in the national
interest. I have ordered that Public
Notice of these Determinations be
published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, including a list of
the exhibit objects, contact Julie
Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of
the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of
State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The
mailing address is U.S. Department of
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
The following Applications for
Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier
Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department
of Transportation’s Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et.
seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to
Modify Scope are set forth below for
each application. Following the Answer
period DOT may process the application
by expedited procedures. Such
procedures may consist of the adoption
of a show-cause order, a tentative order,
or in appropriate cases a final order
without further proceedings.
Docket Number: DOT–OST–2005–
22228 and DOT–OST–2011–0076.
Date Filed: March 6, 2014.
Due Date for Answers, Conforming
Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: March 27, 2014.
Description: Application of JetBlue
Airways Corporation requesting renewal
of its certificate of public convenience
and necessity to operate scheduled
combination service between the United
States, from Boston, MA (BOS), Fort
Lauderdale, FL (FLL), New York, NY
(JFK) and Orlando, FL (MCO), on the
one hand, and Cancun, Mexico (CUN),
on the other hand.
Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket
Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014–06640 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public
Law 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is
hereby given of a meeting of the FAA
Research, Engineering and Development
(R,E&D) Advisory Committee.
Name: Research, Engineering &
Development Advisory Committee.
Time and Date: April 17—8:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m.
Place: Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW.—Round Room (10th
Floor), Washington, DC 20591.
Purpose: The meeting agenda will
include receiving from the Committee
guidance for FAA’s research and
development investments in the areas of
air traffic services, airports, aircraft
safety, human factors and environment
and energy. Attendance is open to the
interested public but seating is limited.
Persons wishing to attend the meeting
or obtain information should contact
Gloria Dunderman at (202) 267–8937 or
gloria.dunderman@faa.gov. Members of
the public may present a written
statement to the Committee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC on: March 19,
2014.
Gloria Dunderman,
Management & Program Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2014–06693 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2007–29320]
Operating Limitations at John F.
Kennedy International Airport
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of extension to Order.
AGENCY:
This action amends the Order
Limiting Operations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK) that
published on January 18, 2008, and was
amended on February 14, 2008, October
7, 2009, April 4, 2011, and May 14,
2013. The Order remains effective until
the final Rule on Slot Management and
Transparency for LaGuardia Airport,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16852-16854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06694]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 8673]
FY 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report Pursuant to Section 7031(B) of
the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74), as Carried Forward
by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L.
113-6); 2013 Fiscal Transparency Report
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State hereby presents the findings from the
FY 2013 fiscal transparency review process in its second annual Fiscal
Transparency Report. This report describes the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency developed by the Department of State, identifies
countries that did not meet these standards, and indicates whether
those countries made progress towards meeting these standards.
Fiscal Transparency
Fiscal transparency is a critical element of effective public
financial management, helps in building market confidence, and sets the
stage for economic sustainability. Transparency also provides a window
into government budgets for citizens of any country, helping them to
hold their leadership accountable. The International Monetary Fund
(IMF) 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.''
Annual 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 to sustain a dialogue with
governments to improve their fiscal performance, leading to greater
macroeconomic stability and better development outcomes.
Section 7031(b)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74)
(SFOAA), as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113-6) (CR), restricts U.S. assistance to
the central government of any country that does not meet the
Department's minimum standards of fiscal transparency, unless the
Secretary of State, or his designee, determines that a waiver is
important to
[[Page 16853]]
the U.S. national interest. The Deputy Secretary of State made those
determinations for FY2013. For countries that did not meet the minimum
standards, the Deputy Secretary 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
In FY 2013, the Department of State assessed fiscal transparency in
49 countries that were potential beneficiaries of FY 2013 foreign
assistance funds via their central governments, determined whether the
minimum standards were met, and identified measures those countries had
implemented to make progress towards meeting the standards. Progress on
fiscal transparency can mean publishing adequate budget documents,
adopting more robust accounting procedures to verify expenditures, or
other measures to improve public financial management.
The Department considered information from U.S. embassies and
consulates, international organizations such as the IMF and
multilateral development banks, and from civil society organizations.
U.S. diplomatic missions engaged with foreign government officials,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and
civil society to obtain information for these assessments.
When a country does not meet the minimum standards of fiscal
transparency, U.S. diplomatic missions, with input and assistance from
USAID, develop and implement action plans to work with governments,
international organizations, and NGOs to improve the availability,
reliability, and content of a country's budget documents. Such plans
present short and long-term actions that the foreign government can
take, often with assistance from multilateral institutions such as the
World Bank and IMF, to improve budget transparency. Examples of actions
from previous plans include implementing a financial management system
to assist in improving internal controls; approving freedom of
information legislation; funding NGOs to provide training on budget
oversight; and coordinating with international organizations to monitor
budget transparency issues.
Minimum Standards of Fiscal Transparency
The SFOAA, as carried forward by the CR, 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 FY 2013 fiscal transparency review process evaluated whether
the central governments of countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance
publicly disclosed budget documents 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. In addition, 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. Budget
documents also should disclose, 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 related data are considered
reliable if they are accurate and disseminated on time. Actual receipts
and expenditures should be reasonably correlated to the budget plan,
and significant departures from planned activities should be explained
in supplementary budget documents and publicly disclosed in a timely
manner.
Transparent: Budgets fulfill the ``public disclosure''
criteria if they are broadly available on-line, at government offices
or libraries, on request from the ministry, or for purchase at a
nominal fee at a government office.
The Department recognizes that the specific circumstances and
practices of fiscal transparency differ between countries. The review
process takes a tailored approach in evaluating countries to make a
determination of whether the central government provides an adequate
level of budget detail to enable participation, monitoring, and
feedback from civil society groups.
Conclusions of Review Process
In FY 2013, the Department reviewed 49 countries that were
potential beneficiaries of FY 2013 U.S. foreign assistance via their
central governments, assessed whether they met the Department's minimum
standards of fiscal transparency and identified measures those
countries had implemented to make progress towards meeting the minimum
standards. The Department concluded that 34 of the 49 countries did not
meet the minimum standards of fiscal transparency, and that 27 non-
transparent countries made progress in meeting the minimum standards of
fiscal transparency.
The following table lists the 34 countries that were found to be
non-transparent and whether they made progress toward meeting the
minimum standards:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries whose central governments received
or were considered for assistance assessed Progress No progress
to be non-transparent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................................. X ............
Algeria..................................... X ............
Burma....................................... X ............
Cambodia.................................... X ............
Cameroon.................................... X ............
Central African Republic.................... ............ X
Chad........................................ X ............
Dominican Republic.......................... X ............
DRC......................................... X ............
Egypt....................................... X ............
Ethiopia.................................... X ............
Fiji........................................ X ............
Gabon....................................... ............ X
Gambia...................................... X ............
Guinea...................................... X ............
Haiti....................................... X ............
Lebanon..................................... X ............
Libya....................................... X ............
Madagascar.................................. ............ X
Nicaragua................................... X ............
Niger....................................... X ............
Nigeria..................................... X ............
Republic of Congo........................... ............ X
Saudi Arabia................................ X ............
Somalia..................................... X ............
South Sudan................................. X ............
Suriname.................................... X ............
Swaziland................................... X ............
Tajikistan.................................. X ............
Turkmenistan................................ ............ X
Ukraine..................................... X ............
[[Page 16854]]
Uzbekistan.................................. ............ X
Yemen....................................... ............ X
Zimbabwe.................................... X ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Heather Higginbottom,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-06694 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
