Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 10561 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OTS may 

not conduct or sponsor an information 

collection, and respondents are not 

required to respond to an information 

collection, unless the information 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. As part of the 

approval process, we invite comments 

on the following information collection. 

Title of Proposal: Application for 

Conversion from: (1) OTS–Regulated, 

State-Chartered Savings Association to 

Federal Savings Association; (b) 

National Bank, State Savings Bank, or 

Credit Union to Federal Savings 

Association; (c) State Mutual Holding 

Company to a Federal Mutual Holding 

Company. 

OMB Number: 1550–0007. 

Form Number: OTS–1582. 

Regulation Requirement: 12 CFR Part 

516, 543, and 552. 

Description: The application is 

reviewed to determine whether it meets 

applicable eligibility requirements for 

conversion and complies with 

applicable OTS policies. Applications 

are also reviewed to determine whether 

special conditions are needed to 

establish the institution’s authority to 

continue activities or investments 

permitted under state law but not 

authorized for a Federal association. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6. 

Estimated Burden Hours per 

Response: 4 hours. 

Estimated Frequency of Response: 

Other. 

Estimated Total Burden: 24 hours. 

Clearance Officer: Ira L. Mills, (202) 

906–6531, Office of Thrift Supervision, 

1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20552. 

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

Ira L. Mills, 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4851 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

United States Mint 

Pricing for 2010 United States Mint 

America the Beautiful QuartersTM TwoRoll Set, etc. 

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department 

of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is 

announcing the price of the 2010 United 

States Mint America the Beautiful 

Quarters Two-Roll Set and the 2010 

United States Mint America the 

Beautiful Quarters 100–Coin Bags. 

The 2010 United States Mint America 

the Beautiful Quarters Two-Roll Sets, 

featuring Hot Springs National Park, 

Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite 

National Park, Grand Canyon National 

Park, and Mount Hood National Forest, 

will be priced at $32.95 each. These sets 

will contain rolls of coins struck at both 

the United States Mint facilities at 

Philadelphia and Denver. The first set, 

featuring Hot Springs National Park, 

will be released on April 19, 2010. 

The 2010 United States Mint America 

the Beautiful Quarters 100–Coin Bags, 

also featuring Hot Springs National 

Park, Yellowstone National Park, 

Yosemite National Park, Grand Canyon 

National Park, and Mount Hood 

National Forest, will be priced at $35.95 

each. Bags of coins from both the United 

States Mint facilities at Philadelphia 

and Denver will be available. The first 

bags, featuring Hot Springs National 

Park, will be released on April 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B.B. 

Craig, Associate Director for Sales and 

Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th 

Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or 

call 202–354–7500. 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Edmund C. Moy, 

Director, United States Mint. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4866 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund 

Request for Public Comment: 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund, Community 

Development Financial and Technical 

Assistance Awards, Native Initiatives, 

and Bank Enterprise Awards 

AGENCY: Community Development 

Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. 

SUMMARY: This notice invites comments 

from the public on issues regarding the 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions (CDFI) Fund, including the 

CDFI financial and technical assistance 

awards, the Native Initiatives and the 

Bank Enterprise Awards (BEA). In 

particular, the CDFI Fund is interested 

in comments from the public related to 

an array of statutory requirements, in 

the interest of determining whether the 

CDFI Fund should seek technical 

corrections or substantive revisions to 

the authorizing statute. All materials 

submitted will be available for public 

inspection and copying. 

DATES: All comments and submissions 

must be received by May 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

by mail to: Scott Berman, Acting Chief 

Operating Officer, CDFI Fund, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, 601 13th 

Street, NW., Suite 200 South, 

Washington, DC 20005; by e-mail to 

cdfihelp@cdfi.treas.gov; or by facsimile 

at (202) 622–7754. Please note this is 

not a toll free number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding the CDFI Fund 

may be downloaded from the CDFI 

Fund’s Web site at http:// 

www.cdfifund.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CDFI 

Fund was created by the Riegle 

Community Development and 

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 for 

the purpose of promoting economic 

revitalization and community 

development through investment in and 

assistance to community development 

financial institutions (CDFIs). The CDFI 

Fund’s mission is to expand the 

capacity of financial institutions to 

provide credit, capital and financial 

services to underserved populations and 

communities in the United States. 

The CDFI Fund achieves its purpose 

by promoting access to capital and local 

economic growth through: (a) CDFI 

financial and technical assistance 

awards, thereby directly investing in, 

supporting and training CDFIs that 

provide loans, investments, financial 

services and technical assistance to 

underserved populations and 

communities; (b) allocations of New 

Markets Tax Credit authority to 

community development entities, 

thereby attracting investment from the 

private sector and facilitating their 

reinvestment in low-income 

communities; (c) BEA, thereby 

providing an incentive to banks to 

invest in their communities and in other 

CDFIs; (d) the Native Initiatives, thereby 

providing financial assistance, technical 

assistance and training to Native CDFIs 

and other Native entities proposing to 

become or create Native CDFIs; (e) 

Capital Magnet Fund awards thereby 

providing financial assistance grants to 

CDFIs and nonprofit housing developers 

for the purpose of attracting private 

capital and increasing investment in 

affordable housing and related 

activities; and (f) Financial Education 

and Counseling Pilot awards, thereby 

providing grants to organizations to 

provide innovative and replicable 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
10562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

financial education and counseling 

services for prospective homebuyers. 

A. Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund 

1. Community Development Advisory 

Board 

The statute that authorized the CDFI 

Fund established the Community 

Development Advisory Board (Advisory 

Board), which consists of 15 members, 

nine of whom are private citizens 

appointed by the President. The role of 

the Advisory Board is to advise the 

CDFI Fund Director on the policies of 

the CDFI Fund (12 U.S.C. 4703(d)). The 

CDFI Fund invites and encourages 

comments and suggestions germane to 

the need for, purpose and selection 

criteria of the Advisory Board. The CDFI 

Fund is particularly interested in 

comments in the following areas: 

(a) Is the current composition of the 

Advisory Board adequate to represent 

the needs of CDFIs? 

(b) Are there other regulatory or 

government agencies that should be 

represented on the Advisory Board? 

(c) Is the current national geographic 

representation and racial, ethnic and 

gender diversity requirement for 

Advisory Board membership adequate? 

(d) Should there be term limits for the 

private citizens appointed to the 

Advisory Board? 

(e) Should there be baseline 

requirements related to the knowledge 

private citizens appointed to the 

Advisory Board have about CDFIs and/ 

or community development finance? 

(f) Is the requirement to meet at least 

annually sufficient? 

(g) Currently the statute requires that 

two individuals who are officers of 

national consumer or public interest 

organizations (12 U.S.C. 

4703(d)(2)(G)(iii)) be on the Advisory 

Board. Should this requirement be more 

specific regarding what types of 

organizations fulfill the requirement? 

B. Community Development Financial 

Institutions (CDFI) Awards 

1. Definitions 

The statute that authorizes the CDFI 

Fund defines low-income as an income, 

adjusted for family size, of not more 

than 80 percent of the area median 

income for metropolitan areas and, for 

nonmetropolitan areas, the greater of 80 

percent of the area median income or 80 

percent of the statewide 

nonmetropolitan area median income 

(12 U.S.C. 4702(17)). The statute defines 

targeted population as individuals or an 

identifiable group of individuals, 

including an Indian tribe, who are lowincome persons or otherwise lack 

adequate access to loans or equity 

investments (12 U.S.C. 4702(20)). The 

CDFI Fund is interested in comments 

regarding all definitions found in the 

authorizing statute, including the 

following questions: 

(a) Are the definitions for low-income 

and targeted population still viable? If 

not, what alternative definitions might 

be considered? 

(b) Should other definitions be added 

to the statute to ensure that CDFI awards 

target areas of ‘‘high’’ economic distress? 

If so, what criteria should be utilized? 

(c) The term ‘‘subsidiary’’ means any 

company which is owned or controlled 

directly or indirectly by another 

company and includes any service 

corporation owned in whole or in part 

by an insured depository institution or 

any subsidiary of such service 

corporation; except that a CDFI that is 

a corporation shall not be considered to 

be a subsidiary of any insured 

depository institution or depository 

institution holding company that 

controls less than 25 percent of any 

class of the voting shares of such 

corporation, and does not otherwise 

control in any manner the election of a 

majority of the directors of the 

corporation. (12 U.S.C. 4702(19); 12 

U.S.C. 1813(w)(4)). The term ‘‘affiliate’’ 

means any company that controls, is 

controlled by, or is under common 

control with another company (12 

U.S.C. 4702(3); 12 U.S.C. 1841(k)). Are 

these definitions still viable? If not, 

what alternative definitions might be 

considered? 

(d) The Federal Housing Finance 

Agency (FHFA) has issued its final rule 

regarding CDFI eligibility for 

membership in the Federal Home Loan 

Bank System. In its final rule, the FHFA 

provided several financial definitions 

(e.g., net asset ratio, operating liquidity 

ratio, gross revenues, operating 

expenses, restricted assets, unrestricted 

cash and cash equivalents). Should the 

CDFI Fund adopt any or all of these 

definitions? 

(e) Should the CDFI Fund align its 

definitions for consistency across all 

CDFI Fund programs? 

2. Certification 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

defines a community development 

financial institution as an entity that: (i) 

Has a primary mission of promoting 

community development; (ii) serves an 

investment area or targeted population; 

(iii) provides development services in 

conjunction with equity investments or 

loans, directly or through a subsidiary 

or affiliate; (iv) maintains, through 

representation on its governing board or 

otherwise, accountability to residents of 

its investment area or targeted 

population; and (v) is not an agency or 

instrumentality of the United States, or 

of any State or political subdivision of 

a State (12 U.S.C. 4702(5)). The CDFI 

Fund provides further clarification and 

guidance regarding CDFI certification in 

its regulations at 12 CFR part 1805.201. 

The CDFI Fund invites and encourages 

comments and suggestions germane to 

the criteria and purpose of CDFI 

certification. The CDFI Fund is 

particularly interested in comments 

regarding: 

(a) Is the criteria established for CDFI 

certification adequate to ensure that 

only highly-qualified CDFIs obtain the 

certification? Should the CDFI Fund 

seek to only certify highly-qualified 

CDFIs? 

(b) Are there types of CDFIs that are 

prohibited from certification because of 

the criteria; if so, what changes are 

needed? 

(c) Should the CDFI Fund more 

closely align its certification with the 

FHFA rule requiring a CDFI to submit 

with its application an independent 

audit conducted within the prior year, 

more recent quarterly statements (if 

available) and financial statements for 

two years prior to the audited 

statement? 

(d) Should CDFIs be re-certified on a 

regular basis and, if so, how often? 

(e) Presently, the CDFI Fund only 

requires a CDFI to notify it of material 

events when applying for an award. 

Should such notification be required 

from all certified CDFIs on a regular 

basis (e.g., every year; every three 

years)? 

(f) Currently, CDFI certification 

review does not entail an assessment of 

an organization’s underlying financial 

soundness. Should the CDFI Fund 

require any or all of the following 

financial documentation as a condition 

of certification? 

(i) Net asset ratio to total assets of at 

least 20 percent, with net and total 

assets including restricted assets (net 

assets are calculated as the residual 

value of assets over liabilities); 

(ii) Positive net income (gross 

revenues less total expenses) measured 

on a three-year rolling average; 

(iii) Ratio of loan loss reserves to 

loans and leases 90 days or more 

delinquent (including loans sold with 

full recourse) of at least 30 percent, and 

loan loss reserves at a specified balance 

sheet account that reflects the amount 

reserved for loans expected to be 

uncollectible; 

(iv) Operating liquidity ratio of at 

least 1.0 for the four most recent 

quarters and for one or both of the two 

preceding years (numerator of the ratio 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 10563 

includes unrestricted cash and cash 

equivalents and the denominator of the 

ratio is the average quarterly operating 

expense). 

(h) Should the CDFI Fund require 

certified CDFIs to annually submit 

current information on financial 

viability and other data necessary to 

assess the financial condition and social 

performance of the CDFI industry? 

3. Holding Companies, Subsidiaries and 

Affiliates 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

provides conditions for CDFI 

qualification for a depository institution 

holding company, subsidiary or affiliate, 

establishing that a holding company 

may qualify as a CDFI if the holding 

company and the subsidiaries and 

affiliates of the holding company 

collectively satisfy the requirements to 

be certified as a CDFI (12 U.S.C. 

4702(5)(B) and (C)). The CDFI Fund 

invites and encourages comments and 

suggestions germane to this issue, 

specifically: 

(a) Should a certified CDFI that is a 

holding company, or its subsidiary and 

affiliate, be allowed to apply for a CDFI 

Fund award if the depository institution 

is also applying during the same 

funding round? 

(b) Should holding companies, 

subsidiaries and affiliates of depository 

institutions be extended separate CDFI 

certifications, regardless of whether the 

entities can collectively satisfy the 

certification requirements? 

(c) Should all CDFI institution types 

be held to the ‘‘Conditions for 

Qualification of Holding Companies’’ set 

forth at 12 U.S.C. 4702(5)(B), as are 

depository institution holding 

companies? 

4. Geographic and Institutional 

Diversity 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

states that the CDFI Fund ‘‘shall seek to 

fund a geographically diverse group of 

applicants, which shall include 

applicants from metropolitan, 

nonmetropolitan, and rural areas’’ (12 

U.S.C. 4706(b)). The CDFI Fund invites 

and encourages comments and 

suggestions relating to geographic 

diversity, especially: 

(a) Are CDFI awards adequately 

geographically diverse; if not, how 

should the CDFI Fund ensure 

geographic diversity? 

(c) How should the CDFI Fund define 

metropolitan area? 

(d) How should the CDFI Fund define 

nonmetropolitan area? 

(e) How should the CDFI Fund define 

rural area? 

(f) How should the CDFI Fund define 

underserved rural area? 

(g) Are there other underserved areas 

that should be considered for purposes 

of geographic diversity? 

The CDFI Fund invites and 

encourages comments regarding 

institutional diversity as well, 

including: 

(a) Should institutional diversity be a 

priority of the CDFI Fund? 

(b) Should the CDFI Fund designate a 

specific amount of funding for regulated 

depository institutions separately from 

loan funds and venture capital funds? If 

so, what proportion of the funding 

should be designated for CDFI banks 

and CDFI credit unions? 

(d) If a special amount is not 

designated, what can the CDFI Fund do 

to achieve institutional diversity? 

5. Financial Assistance 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

allows flexibility in the forms of 

assistance provided. These may include 

equity investments, deposits, credit 

union shares, loans, grants and 

technical assistance, with certain 

limitations (12 U.S.C. 4707(a)(1)). The 

statute also sets forth the permissible 

uses of CDFI financial assistance award 

proceeds which include, among others, 

certain commercial facilities, 

businesses, community facilities, 

affordable housing and basic financial 

services (12 U.S.C. 4707(b)(1). The CDFI 

Fund welcomes comments on issues 

relating to the forms of financial 

assistance, qualifications, uses, and 

general structure, particularly with 

respect to the following questions: 

(a) As implemented through its 

Notices of Funds Availability (NOFA), 

which are issued for each funding 

round, the CDFI Fund has structured 

two categories for financial assistance 

applicants: 

‘‘Core’’ and ‘‘Small and Emerging CDFI 

Assistance’’ (SECA) for applicants that 

were recently established or that have 

smaller assets compared to institutional 

type. Despite these two award 

categories, many CDFIs have grown and 

expanded their reach in recent years. Is 

there a point at which a CDFI should be 

considered to have ‘‘graduated’’ from 

and no longer be eligible for CDFI 

awards? If so, what should be the 

criteria (e.g., successful award history, 

asset size, national reach, etc.)? 

(b) If a CDFI were to ‘‘graduate’’ from 

CDFI award eligibility, should another 

program be developed for such an 

institution; if so, what type of financial 

assistance should those institutions 

receive? 

(c) Under the CDFI Fund’s authorizing 

statute, the CDFI Fund has the authority 

to make long-term, low-interest loans to 

CDFIs, dependent on matching funds. Is 

there a need for a loan product in 

addition to the CDFI financial and 

technical assistance awards and its 

lending authority? If so, please describe 

the product, e.g., terms and conditions, 

matching funds requirement, etc. 

Should funds be diverted from the CDFI 

awards to establish a loan pool? 

(d) Is there a need for a CDFI federal 

loan guarantee and if so how would it 

be structured? 

(e) Should a category be created 

specifically for CDFIs that serve a 

national market or are intermediaries? If 

so, what proportion of the appropriation 

should be allocated for such applicants? 

(f) Are there changes the CDFI Fund 

could make to the financial and 

technical assistance awards that would 

make it more accessible or beneficial to 

certified CDFI banks? 

(g) Should the CDFI Fund provide a 

technical assistance award to an 

organization (i.e., a community 

development corporation) that proposes 

to create a new CDFI, even if that 

organization is not a CDFI itself? 

(h) Should CDFIs be required to 

provide financial education to their 

customers; if so should there be a 

minimum level of education? 

6. Award Cap 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

states that except for technical 

assistance, the CDFI Fund cannot 

provide more than $5 million of 

assistance in total during any three-year 

period to a single CDFI, its subsidiaries 

and affiliates (12 U.S.C. 4707(d)). An 

exception is allowed for up to an 

additional $3.75 million during the 

three-year period for a CDFI proposing 

to establish a subsidiary or affiliate for 

the purpose of serving an investment 

area or targeted population outside a 

State or metropolitan area presently 

served by the CDFI. The CDFI Fund 

seeks comments regarding whether 

awards should have a cap, specifically: 

(a) Should CDFI Fund award amounts 

have a cap or should award amounts be 

based on merit and availability? 

(b) Should subsidiaries and affiliates 

have a funding cap that is separate from 

their parent CDFI? 

(c) Should the CDFI Fund make an 

award to only one affiliated organization 

during the same funding round? 

(d) Is ‘‘$5 million of assistance in total 

during any three-year period’’ too 

restrictive? If so, what are the 

alternatives, if any? 

7. Matching Fund Requirements 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

requires that financial assistance awards 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
10564 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

must be matched with funds from 

sources other than the federal 

government on the basis of not less than 

one dollar for each dollar provided by 

the CDFI Fund. It further states that the 

matching funds ‘‘shall be at least 

comparable in form and value to 

assistance provided by the Fund’’ (12 

U.S.C. 4707(e)). Assistance cannot be 

provided until the CDFI has secured 

firm commitments for the matching 

funds. The CDFI Fund encourages 

comments and suggestions germane to 

match requirements established in the 

statute, specifically: 

(a) Does the dollar-for-dollar matching 

funds requirement restrict a CDFI’s 

ability to apply for a financial assistance 

award? If so, what should be the 

matching funds requirement? 

(b) Should the matching funds 

continue to be restricted to comparable 

form and value or should any type and 

source of funding be allowed as 

matching funds? 

(c) The statute provides certain 

exceptions to the matching funds 

requirement and provides the CDFI 

Fund the flexibility to reduce the match 

requirement by 50 percent in certain 

circumstances. Is this appropriate? 

(d) The statute allows the applicant to 

provide matching funds in a different 

form if the applicant has total assets of 

less than $100,000; serves 

nonmetropolitan or rural areas; and is 

not requesting more than $25,000 in 

assistance. Should this provision apply 

to all applicants? Should the asset size 

and assistance request be increased? 

C. CDFI Training 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

gives the CDFI Fund the authority to 

create a training program to increase the 

capacity and expertise of CDFIs and 

other members of the financial services 

industry to undertake community 

development finance activities (12 

U.S.C. 4708). In August 2009, the CDFI 

Fund announced a new CapacityBuilding Initiative to greatly expand 

technical assistance and training 

opportunities for CDFIs nationwide. 

Comments regarding this new initiative 

are welcome, specifically: 

(a) Will the Capacity-Building 

Initiative, as currently structured, 

provide the training that CDFIs need to 

deliver financial products and services 

to underserved communities 

nationwide? 

(b) The first training products that 

will be offered by the Capacity-Building 

Initiative will include affordable 

housing and business lending, portfolio 

management, risk assessment, 

foreclosure prevention, training in CDFI 

business processes, and assistance with 

liquidity and capitalization challenges. 

What other topics should this initiative 

provide in the future? 

(c) Are other technical assistance and 

training resources needed? 

D. Capitalization Assistance To 

Enhance Liquidity 

The CDFI Fund’s authorizing statute 

created a Liquidity Enhancement (LE) 

Program (12 U.S.C. 4712) that has never 

received an appropriation. In general, 

the statute authorized the CDFI Fund to 

provide assistance for the purpose of 

providing capital to organizations to 

purchase loans or otherwise enhance 

the liquidity of CDFIs if the primary 

purpose of the organization is to 

promote community development. If 

funds were appropriated for this 

program: 

(1) Any assistance provided by the 

CDFI Fund would require matching 

funds on the basis of not less than 

dollar-for-dollar and would need to be 

comparable in form and value to the 

assistance provided by the CDFI Fund; 

(2) organizations receiving LE Program 

assistance would not be able to receive 

other financial or technical assistance 

from the CDFI Fund; (3) awards could 

not be made for more than $5 million 

to an organization or its subsidiaries or 

affiliates during any three-year period; 

and (4) certain compliance information 

would be required. The CDFI Fund 

welcomes comments on issues relating 

to the LE Program, particularly with 

respect to the following questions: 

(a) Do CDFIs have a liquidity need? 

(b) Would the LE Program, as 

structured, help address CDFIs’ 

liquidity needs? 

(c) Should the restrictions related to 

the award cap and/or matching funds be 

removed as a means to create larger 

impacts? 

(d) What changes are needed to make 

this a viable initiative? 

(e) Are there other program ideas 

better suited to providing liquidity for 

CDFIs? 

E. Native Initiatives 

In its fiscal year 2001 appropriation 

and every fiscal year since, the CDFI 

Fund has been appropriated funds for 

the purpose of making financial 

assistance and technical assistance 

awards and to provide training designed 

to benefit Native American, Alaskan 

Native and Native Hawaiian 

communities (collectively referred to as 

‘‘Native Communities’’). While Native 

Initiatives awards have been through 

several iterations, the current award 

vehicle are Native American CDFI 

Assistance (NACA) awards through 

which the CDFI Fund provides financial 

and technical assistance awards to 

Native CDFIs. The CDFI Fund welcomes 

comments on issues relating to the 

Native Initiatives, particularly with 

respect to the following questions: 

(a) Should the CDFI Fund seek 

statutory authority to make the NACA 

awards permanent? 

(b) What other services should the 

CDFI Fund provide to Native 

Communities? 

(c) What improvements could be 

made to Native Initiatives and, in 

particular, to NACA awards? 

(d) Should there be a limit on the 

number of technical assistance grants an 

applicant can receive? 

(e) Should the CDFI Fund provide 

‘‘seed funding’’ financial assistance 

grants to non-certified, emerging Native 

CDFIs for the purpose of increasing 

lending in Native Communities? 

(f) Many Native CDFIs have grown 

and expanded their reach in recent 

years. Is there a point where a Native 

CDFI should be seen as having 

‘‘graduated’’ from NACA financial 

assistance and be required to compete 

for a CDFI financial and technical 

assistance award? Is so, what should be 

the criteria? 

F. Bank Enterprise Awards (BEA) 

The purpose of BEA is to provide an 

incentive for insured depository 

institutions to increase their activities in 

distressed communities and provide 

financial assistance to CDFIs. The CDFI 

Fund welcomes comments on issues 

relating to the eligibility of certain 

activities, qualifications and general 

program structure, particularly with 

respect to the following questions: 

(1) Are the qualified activity 

definitions used for BEA still 

applicable; are there any new 

definitions that should be included (if 

so, please provide new definitions)? 

(2) An insured depository institution 

may apply for a BEA award based on its 

activities during an assessment period, 

which opens the program to all FDICinsured banks and thrifts. The statute 

that authorized BEA (12 U.S.C. 

1834a(j)(3)) states that an insured 

depository institution is defined by 

section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(2)), 

which does not include credit unions 

whose deposits are insured by the 

National Credit Union Administration. 

Currently, credit unions can only be 

qualified recipients of loans and 

deposits from BEA applicants (‘‘CDFI 

Partners’’). Should only banks and 

thrifts certified by the CDFI Fund be 

eligible to apply for BEA? Should 

federally insured, certified CDFI credit 

unions be eligible for BEA? Should only 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 10565 

those applicants of a certain asset class 

(e.g., ‘‘small’’ banks with less than 

$1.098 billion in assets) be permitted to 

apply for BEA? Should there be a 

minimum funding level for awards (i.e., 

$6,000)? 

(3) The statute that authorized BEA 

states that insured depository 

institutions that meet the community 

development organization requirements 

shall not be less than three times the 

amount of the percentage applicable for 

insured depository institutions that do 

not meet such requirements (12 U.S.C. 

1834a(a)(5)). The statute does require 

that CDFI-certified banks receive 

priority in determining award amounts 

and in funding awards. Should a new 

priority funding structure be created to 

specifically fund certified CDFIs before 

all other types of institutions? 

(4) The statute that authorized BEA 

states that loans and other assistance 

provided for low- and moderate-income 

persons in distressed communities, or 

enterprises integrally involved with 

such neighborhoods, are qualified 

activities (12 U.S.C. 1834a(a)(2)(A)). 

(a) By applying the criteria of 12 

U.S.C. 1834a(b)(3), approximately 2,700 

census tracts fully meet the definition of 

a BEA distressed community. Should 

the definition of a BEA distressed 

community be revised and, if so, how? 

(b) Should the geographic 

requirement be eliminated? If so, why? 

(c) Should the definition of ‘‘integrally 

involved’’ (set forth at 12 CFR 

1806.103(gg)) be changed? If so, how? 

(d) Should a Community 

Reinvestment Act rating be used by the 

CDF Fund in its evaluation of a 

depository institution’s commitment to 

serving low-income and underserved 

communities? 

(5) The statute that authorized BEA 

specifies the types of qualifying 

activities and states that the award must 

be based on an increase in those 

activities over a period of time (12 

U.S.C. 1834a(a)(2)). The current BEA 

structure bases award amounts solely on 

a formula and requires a demonstrated 

increase in activity, making BEA 

retroactive by design. How should the 

BEA be restructured, if at all? For 

example, should BEA have a leverage 

requirement; should awards be based on 

future or proposed community 

development activities, etc.? 

(6) The BEA regulations (12 CFR part 

1806.201–305) outline the measuring 

and reporting of qualified activities, 

calculations for estimating award 

amounts including the selection process 

for awards, and award agreements, 

sanctions, and compliance. 

(a) Should these sections be updated? 

If so, how? 

(b) Are any changes needed to make 

the program work better? 

G. Small Business Capital Enhancement 

Program 

The Riegle Community Development 

and Regulatory Improvement Act of 

1994 included a Small Business Capital 

Enhancement (SBCE) Program (12 

U.S.C. 4741), which has never received 

an appropriation. If funds were 

appropriated for this program: (1) The 

SBCE would be a complement to small 

business capital access programs (CAPs) 

implemented by certain States that 

assist financial institutions in providing 

access to needed debt capital; (2) any 

State would apply to the CDFI Fund for 

approval to be a participating State 

under the SBCE and to be eligible for 

reimbursement by the CDFI Fund if that 

State has an established CAP and funds 

available in the amount of at least $1 for 

every two people residing in the State 

are available and committed for use; (3) 

the SBCE would provide matched 

funding to States to provide portfolio 

insurance for business loans based on a 

separate loss reserve fund for each 

financial institution; (4) loan terms 

would be at the discretion of the 

borrower and financial institution; (5) a 

participation agreement would be 

required from all parties and, upon 

receipt of agreement, the participating 

State would enroll the loan and make a 

matching contribution to the reserve 

fund (not less than the premium charges 

paid by the borrower and the financial 

institution); (6) the premium charges 

would not be permitted to be less than 

three percent or more than seven 

percent of the amount of the loan; (7) 

each State would be required to file a 

quarterly report with the CDFI Fund 

indicating the total amount of 

contributions, among other information; 

and (8) the CDFI Fund then would 

reimburse the State in an amount equal 

to 50 percent of the amount of 

contributions by the State to the reserve 

funds that are subject to reimbursement. 

The CDFI Fund welcomes comments on 

issues relating to the viability of such a 

program, especially with respect to the 

following questions: 

(a) Is there a need for the SBCE? 

(b) What changes should be made to 

the SBCE legislation to make it most 

effective? 

(c) Are the limits on reimbursement 

adequate to meet current need? 

(d) Is there another program idea 

better suited to the needs of America’s 

small businesses? 

H. General Comments 

The CDFI Fund is interested in any 

additional comments regarding the 

Riegle Community Development and 

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. Chapter 47, 

Subchapters 1–2; 12 U.S.C. 1834a. 

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

Donna J. Gambrell, 

Director, Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4786 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–70–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES