Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Notices 28767 

headquartered in non-metropolitan 

counties? 

(c) Principal service area of allocatees. 

Should the CDFI Fund endeavor to 

ensure that either: (i) A desired 

proportion of NMTC allocatees (as a 

percentage of the total number of 

allocatees) in any given NMTC 

allocation round is ‘‘principally 

serving’’ (i.e., making QLICIs in) nonmetropolitan counties; or (ii) a desired 

proportion of NMTC allocation 

authority (as a percentage of the total 

dollar amount of allocation authority) in 

any given NMTC allocation round is 

provided to CDEs principally serving 

non-metropolitan counties? If so, what 

is the appropriate meaning of 

‘‘principally serving’’ (e.g., 85 percent of 

total QLICIs made by the CDE, 50 

percent of total QLICIs made by the 

CDE, or another calculation)? 

(d) Location of QLICIs. Should the 

CDFI Fund endeavor to ensure that a 

desired proportion of QLICIs is 

provided in non-metropolitan counties, 

without consideration of where the CDE 

is headquartered or which counties 

(metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan) that 

it is principally serving? 

2. ‘‘Proportionality.’’ Commentators 

are asked to consider, in accordance 

with one or more of the alternatives 

presented under issue 1 above, the most 

appropriate definition of the term 

‘‘proportional.’’

(a) With respect to alternatives (a) and 

(d) under issue 1, should the CDFI Fund 

define the term ‘‘proportional’’ to mean: 

(i) The proportion of the U.S. 

population that resides in nonmetropolitan areas (approximately 17.4 

percent); (ii) the proportion of lowincome communities that are located in 

non-metropolitan areas (approximately 

25 percent); or (iii) another calculation? 

(b) With respect to alternatives (b) and 

(c) under issue 1, should the proportion 

be based upon: (i) the total applicant 

pool for a given NMTC allocation round 

(for example, if 25 percent of the 

applicant pool consists of CDEs that 

predominantly serve non-metropolitan 

areas, the CDFI Fund would ensure that 

25 percent of the allocatees 

predominantly serve rural areas); or (ii) 

that portion of the applicant pool that, 

after the first phase of application 

review and scoring, met or exceeded the 

minimum scoring threshold to be 

eligible for NMTC allocations? 

(c) With respect to alternatives (c) and 

(d) under issue 1, should the percentage 

of QLICIs made in low-income 

communities be based upon the total 

number of QLICIs made by a CDE, or the 

total dollar amount of those QLICIs? 

3. Review Process. Commentators are 

asked to consider what changes the 

CDFI Fund should consider making to 

the allocation application review and 

decision-making process. What 

modifications could be made to the 

CDFI Fund’s review process to ensure 

that there is a proportional allocation of 

QEIs in non-metropolitan areas? For 

example: 

(a) Priority points. In prior allocation 

rounds, the CDFI Fund has provided up 

to five priority points to applicants that 

demonstrated a track record of having 

successfully provided capital or 

technical assistance to disadvantaged 

businesses or communities, pursuant to 

IRC section 45D(f)(2). Should the CDFI 

Fund adopt priority points based on: (i) 

The CDE’s track record of serving nonmetropolitan areas (e.g., an applicant 

could get up to five priority points 

based on the percentage of its historic 

activities serving non-metropolitan 

areas); (ii) a forward-looking 

commitment to serving nonmetropolitan areas (e.g., up to five 

points based on the percentage of 

activities that will be directed to nonmetropolitan areas); or (iii) both the 

track record and the forward-looking 

commitments? 

(b) Re-ranking of applicants. Should 

the CDFI Fund consider advancing 

lower scoring applicants that 

predominantly serve non-metropolitan 

areas over higher scoring applicants so 

that the desired proportionality is 

achieved? 

4. Compliance. The CDFI Fund must 

have a mechanism to ensure that 

allocatees comply with any nonmetropolitan area proportionality 

requirement. Commentators are asked to 

consider whether the CDFI Fund should 

require that applicants specify in their 

applications the percentage of their QEI 

proceeds that they will use to make 

investments in non-metropolitan areas 

and then be held to those percentages as 

a condition of their allocation 

agreements. 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 45D; Tax Relief and 

Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109–432; 26 

CFR 1.45D–1. 

Dated: May 16, 2007. 

Kimberly A. Reed, 

Director, Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund. 

[FR Doc. E7–9832 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Advisory Committee on Structural 

Safety of Department of Veterans 

Affairs Facilities; Notice of Meeting 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) gives notice under Public law 92–

463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) 

that a meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on Structural Safety of 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Facilities will be held on June 14–15, 

2007, in Room 4442, Export Import 

Bank, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, D.C. The June 14 session 

will be from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., and the 

June 15 session will be from 8:30 a.m. 

until 12:30 p.m. The meeting is open to 

the public. 

The purpose of the Committee is to 

advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

on matters of structural safety in the 

construction and remodeling of VA 

facilities and to recommend standards 

for use by VA in the construction and 

alteration of its facilities. 

On June 14, the Committee will 

review developments in the fields of fire 

safety issues and structural design as 

they relate to seismic and other natural 

hazards, impact on the safety of 

buildings. On June 15, the Committee 

will receive appropriate briefings and 

presentations on current seismic, 

natural hazards and fire safety issues 

that are particularly relevant to facilities 

owned and leased by the Department. 

The Committee will also discuss 

appropriate structural and fire safety 

recommendations for inclusion in VA’s 

standards. 

No time will be allocated for receiving 

oral presentations from the public. 

However, the Committee will accept 

written statements. Statements should 

be sent to Krishna K. Banga, Senior 

Structural Engineer, Facilities Quality 

Service, Office of Construction & 

Facilities Management (00CFM1A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420. Those wishing to attend should 

contact Mr. Banga at (202) 565–9370. 

Dated: May 15, 2007. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 07–2516 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–07–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES