38482 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 147 / Monday, August 3, 2009 / Notices 

severe hypoglycemia, significant 

complications, or inability to manage 

diabetes; also, any involvement in an 

accident or any other adverse event in 

a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or 

not they are related to an episode of 

hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (4) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s 

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a 

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received no comments in this 

proceeding. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 

twenty-one exemption applications, 

FMCSA exempts: Eugene L. Bradley, 

John F. Carruthers, Keith A. Craven, Jose 

E. Cruz, Daniel L. Dixon, Michael A. 

Garufi, Joseph P. Jurewicz II, Dana N. 

Larsen, Jason G. Leavitt, Chad M. 

Morris, Thomas M. Petee, Jim A. Phelps, 

Larry R. Price, James F. Rabideau, Jr., 

Stanley N. Reneau, Richard D. Ritenour, 

John E. Spano, Delton N. Stewart, Mark 

S. Sundberg, Timothy G. Walls, and 

Kelly R. Winslow from the ITDM 

standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject 

to the conditions listed under 

‘‘Conditions and Requirements’’ above. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315 each exemption will be valid 

for two years unless revoked earlier by 

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 

if: (1) The person fails to comply with 

the terms and conditions of the 

exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315. If the exemption is still effective 

at the end of the 2-year period, the 

person may apply to FMCSA for a 

renewal under procedures in effect at 

that time. 

Issued on: July 24, 2009. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–18450 Filed 7–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Notice and Request for Comments 

AGENCY: Community Development 

Financial Institutions Fund. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund (the Fund) is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

‘‘New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) 

Program—Allocation Application’’ 

(hereafter, the Application). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 2, 2009 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to 

Matthew Josephs, NMTC Program 

Manager, Community Development 

Financial Institutions 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 

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

not a toll free number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Application and the NMTC Program 

Notice of Allocation Availability 

(NOAA) for the FY 2009 allocation 

round (74 FR 4077, January 22, 2009) 

may be obtained from the NMTC 

Program page of the Fund’s Web site at 

http://www.cdfifund.gov. Requests for 

additional information should be 

directed to Matthew Josephs, NMTC 

Program Manager, Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

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 

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

not a toll free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: New Markets Tax Credit 

(NMTC) Program—Allocation 

Application. 

OMB Number: 1559–0016. 

Abstract: Title I, subtitle C, section 

121 of the Community Renewal Tax 

Relief Act of 2000 (the Act), as enacted 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2001 (Pub. L. 106–554, December 21, 

2000), amended the Internal Revenue 

Code (IRC) by adding IRC § 45D and 

created the NMTC Program. The 

Department of the Treasury, through the 

Fund, administers the NMTC Program, 

which provides an incentive to 

investors in the form of tax credits over 

seven years, which is expected to 

stimulate the provision of private 

investment capital that, in turn, will 

facilitate economic and community 

development in low-income 

communities. In order to receive the tax 

credit, taxpayers make Qualified Equity 

Investments (QEIs) in Community 

Development Entities (CDEs): 

substantially all of the QEI proceeds 

must in turn be used by the CDE to 

provide investments in businesses and 

real estate developments in low-income 

communities. 

The tax credit provided to the 

investor totals 39 percent of the amount 

of the investment and is claimed over a 

seven-year period. In each of the first 

three years, the investor receives a 

credit equal to five percent of the total 

amount paid for the stock or capital 

interest at the time of purchase. For the 

final four years, the value of the credit 

is six percent annually. Investors may 

not redeem their investments in CDEs 

prior to the conclusion of the seven-year 

period without forfeiting any credit 

amounts they have received. 

The Fund is responsible for certifying 

organizations as CDEs, and 

administering the competitive allocation 

of tax credit authority to CDEs, which it 

does through annual allocation rounds. 

As part of the award selection process, 

all CDEs are required to prepare and 

submit the Application, which includes 

four key sections (Business Strategy; 

Community Impact; Management 

Capacity; and Capitalization Strategy). 

During the first phase of the review 

process, each Application is rated and 

scored independently by three different 

readers. 

In scoring each Application, 

reviewers rate each of the four 

evaluation sections as follows: Weak (0– 

5 points); Limited (6–10 points); 

Average (11–15 points); Good (16–20 

points); and Excellent (21–25 points). 

Applications can be awarded up to ten 

additional ‘‘priority’’ points for 

demonstrating a track record of serving 

disadvantaged business and 

communities and/or for committing to 

make investments in projects owned by 

unrelated parties. If one or more of the 

three readers provides an anomalous 

score, and it is determined that such an 

anomaly would affect the outcome of 

the final awardee pool, then a fourth 

reviewer will score the Application, and 

the anomalous score would likely be 

dropped. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 147 / Monday, August 3, 2009 / Notices 38483 

Once all of the scores have been 

finalized, including anomaly score 

adjustments, those Applications that 

meet minimum aggregate scoring 

thresholds in each of the four major 

review sections (as well as a minimum 

overall scoring threshold) are eligible to 

be considered for an allocation. They 

are reviewed by an internal Fund panel, 

with a Lead Panelist making an award 

recommendation to a Panel Manager, 

and the Panel Manager making an award 

recommendation to the Selecting 

Official. If the Selecting Official’s award 

recommendation varies significantly 

from the recommendation of the Panel 

Manager, then a Reviewing Official 

makes the final award determination. 

Awards are made, in descending order 

of the final rank score, until the 

available allocation authority for a given 

round is fully expended. 

Current Actions: Preparing for the 

upcoming FY 2010 NMTC Program 

allocation round. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Affected Public: CDEs seeking NMTC 

Program allocation authority. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

249. 

Estimated Annual Time per 

Respondent: 200 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 49,800 hours. 

Requests for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for Office of Management and 

Budget approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record and 

may be published on the Fund Web site 

at http://www.cdfifund.gov. Comments 

are invited on: (a) Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of technology; and (e) estimates of 

capital or start-up costs and costs of 

operation, maintenance, and purchase 

of services required to provide 

information. 

The Fund specifically requests 

comments concerning the Application, 

Application review process, and the 

following questions: 

1. Is the information that is currently 

collected by the Application necessary 

and appropriate for the Fund to 

consider for the purpose of making 

award decisions? Please consider each 

question and table in the Application. 

Are there questions or tables that are 

redundant and/or unnecessary? Should 

additional questions or tables be added 

to ensure collection of more relevant 

information? 

2. Are the thresholds contained in 

Question 17 of the Application 

appropriate, given current economic 

conditions? If not, what should the 

criteria include? Should the Fund 

provide a range of flexible product 

commitments based on a discount of 

interest rates below market as defined 

by basis point reductions (or other 

product flexibilities) or continue to 

present commitment options in 

percentage terms? 

3. A CDE is entitled to earn five 

‘‘priority points’’ for committing to 

invest substantially all of its QEI 

proceeds in businesses in which 

persons unrelated to the CDE hold the 

majority equity interest (within the 

meaning of I.R.C. section 267(b) or 

707(b)(1)). With respect to the timing of 

this test, the CDFI Fund has determined 

that it is to be applied after the initial 

investment is made, and for the life of 

the seven-year compliance period 

(though an exception is permitted if 

events unforeseen at the time of the 

initial investment cause the CDE to have 

to subsequently take a controlling 

interest in the business). Is it 

appropriate that this test is applied after 

the investment is made, or should the 

CDFI consider applying this test before 

the investment is made? If the test is to 

be applied before the investment is 

made, then how should the Fund treat 

circumstances whereby the receipt of 

the QEI and the investment in the 

business is essentially a simultaneous 

transaction, particularly when the CDE 

may not have any owners identified 

prior to the QEI closing? 

4. The Application currently collects 

outcome information on the applicant’s 

historic community impacts and 

projected economic development 

impacts in Table C1 and Table C2, 

respectively, and collects information 

on projected community development 

impacts in Question 30. Are there 

changes that should be made in the way 

projected economic development is 

currently measured? Are there other 

outcomes/impacts for which the Fund 

should be collecting information to 

ensure effective use of the NMTC? 

Should the Fund have a greater focus on 

community development outcomes/ 

impacts? Alternatively, should the Fund 

focus exclusively on economic 

development outcomes/impacts? 

5. Do Question 56 and Table F1 of the 

Application capture all sources of 

compensation and profits that the 

applicant and its affiliates receive in 

connection with NMTC transactions? 

How can collection of this information 

be improved? How should the Fund use 

this information? For example, should 

the Fund make the applicant’s stated 

fees a specific condition of the 

Allocation Agreement, and should the 

Fund set limits on fees in the Allocation 

Agreement? 

6. In any given Application round, the 

Fund requires applicants that have 

received awards in previous rounds to 

demonstrate that they have been able to 

raise minimum threshold amounts of 

QEIs from their prior awards (see the 

2009 NOAA for the current minimum 

threshold requirements). Are these 

current minimum threshold 

requirements sufficient? Should the 

Fund consider using different 

measurements, such as the amount of 

QEIs that have been deployed as 

investments in low-income 

communities? 

7. The Fund generally caps award 

amounts to any one organization in a 

given round. In the 2009 Application 

round, this cap was set at $125 million. 

Is this an appropriate amount? Should 

the Fund consider raising the cap 

significantly (e.g., to $250 million), and 

prohibit a CDE that receives such a large 

allocation award from applying again 

for an established period of time? 

8. In April 2009, the Government 

Accountability Office released a report 

titled: ‘‘New Markets Tax Credit: 

Minority Entities Are Less Successful in 

Obtaining Awards than Non-Minority 

Entities’’ (GAO–09–536). Are there 

actions that the Fund should take in 

order to increase the number of minority 

CDE applicants and allocatees? 

9. Are there changes that can be made 

to the application process or elsewhere, 

that will increase the amount of 

Qualified Low-Income Community 

Investments that support activities that 

have not traditionally received large 

scale financing from NMTC investment 

proceeds (e.g., loans and investments for 

small business operations; loans to and 

investments in other CDEs, including 

CDFIs; purchase of loans from other 

CDEs; etc.)? 

10. Currently, the Fund uses 

economic distress factors from the most 

recent decennial census to qualify 

eligible census tracts and to verify, 

when applicable, that awardees are 

serving ‘‘severely’’ distressed 

communities. Are there other public 

sources of data on economic indicators 

(e.g., American Community Survey 

three- and five-year estimates for 

poverty rate, area median income, and 

unemployment rate) that are updated 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
38484 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 147 / Monday, August 3, 2009 / Notices 

more frequently and readily available 

that the Fund should accept? 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 45D; 31 U.S.C. 321; 

26 CFR 1.45D–1. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

Donna J. Gambrell, 

Director, Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund. 

[FR Doc. E9–18525 Filed 7–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Senior Executive Service; Social 

Inspector General for the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program; Performance 

Review Board 

AGENCY: Treasury Department. 

ACTION: Notice of members of the 

SIGTARP Performance Review Board. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 

appointment of members of the Special 

Inspector General for the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program Performance Review 

Board (PRB). The purpose of this Board 

is to review and make recommendations 

concerning proposed performance 

appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other 

appropriate personnel actions for 

incumbents of SES positions in 

SIGTARP. The Board will perform PRB 

functions for other bureau positions if 

requested. 

Compostion of SIGTARP PRB: The 

Board shall consist of at least three 

members. In the case of an appraisal of 

a career appointee, more than half the 

members shall consist of career 

appointees. The names and titles of the 

Board members are as follows: 

Kevin Puvalowski, Deputy Special 

Inspector General. 

Dr. Eileen Ennis, Deputy Special 

Inspector General, Operations. 

Barry Holman, Deputy Special Inspector 

General, Audit. 

Christopher Sharply, Deputy Special 

Inspector General, Investigations. 

Brian Saddler, Chief Counsel to the 

Special Inspector General. 

DATES: Effective Date: Membership is 

effective on the date of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally Ruble, Human Resources 

Specialist, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20220, 

Telephone: 202 927–9457. 

Dated: July 24, 2009. 

Deborah Mason, 

Director, Human Resources, Operations 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–18200 Filed 7–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Departmental Offices; Privacy Act of 

1974, as Amended 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed New Privacy 

Act System of Records for the Home 

Affordable Modification Program. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 

the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury 

(‘‘Treasury’’ or the ‘‘Department’’) is 

giving notice that it proposes to 

establish a new system of records 

necessary to administer the Home 

Affordable Modification Program and 

related homeownership preservation 

programs (‘‘HAMP’’). 

DATES: We have requested that OMB 

waive eight days of its review period for 

this system of records. If OMB grants the 

waiver, the system of records is effective 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register; if OMB does not grant the 

waiver, we will implement the system 

on September 14, 2009. In any event, we 

will not disclose any information under 

a routine use until 32 days after 

publication. We may defer 

implementation of this system of 

records or one or more of the routine 

use statements listed below if we 

receive comments that persuade us to 

defer implementation. Comments must 

be received no later than September 4, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary Fiscal 

Operations and Policy, Department of 

the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

The Department will make such 

comments available for public 

inspection and copying in the 

Department’s Library, Room 1428, Main 

Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, 

on official business days between the 

hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 

Time. You can make an appointment to 

inspect comments by telephoning (202) 

622–0990. All comments, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials received are part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

You should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Theodore R. Kowalsky, Manager, Data & 

Information Technology, Office of Fiscal 

& Financial Agents, Department of the 

Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20220, 202–927– 

9445 or at Ted.Kowalsky@do.treas.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department established HAMP, 

pursuant to the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

343), to enable eligible homeowners 

who have a record of making timely 

mortgage payments, but are 

experiencing hardships in doing so, to 

modify the principal amounts and 

interest rates of their mortgage loans. 

HAMP facilitates such mortgage loan 

modifications by providing subsidies to 

mortgage loan servicers who agree to 

them. The Department administers 

HAMP with the assistance of designated 

Financial Agents. 

The Department establishes this new 

system of records to provide Treasury 

and its Financial Agents with access to 

information about mortgage borrowers 

and their respective home mortgage 

loans that is necessary to determine 

whether, and to what extent, borrowers 

qualify for loan modification assistance. 

The report of this new system of 

records, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) 

of the Privacy Act, has been submitted 

to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of 

Management and Budget, pursuant to 

Appendix I to OMB Circular A–130, 

‘‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for 

Maintaining Records About 

Individuals,’’ dated November 30, 2000. 

The proposed new system of records, 

entitled ‘‘Home Affordable Modification 

Program—Treasury/DO .218,’’ is 

published in its entirety below. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

Melissa Hartman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Privacy 

and Treasury Records. 

TREASURY/DO .218 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Home Affordable Modification 

Program Records—Treasury/DO. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

The Office of Financial Stability, 

Department of the Treasury, 

Washington, DC. Other facilities that 

maintain this system of records are 

located in Urbana, MD and at a backup 

facility located in Reston, VA. Both 

facilities belong to the Federal National 

Mortgage Association (‘‘Fannie Mae’’), 

which has been designated as a 

Financial Agent for HAMP. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

This system of records contains 

information about mortgage borrowers 

that is submitted to the Department or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES