28766 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Notices 

NEW SPECIAL PERMITS—Continued 

Applicant No. Docket 

No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permits thereof 

14515–N ...... ................ STAKO ..................................... 49 CFR 173.302(a); 

173.304(a); 175.3.

To authorize the manufacture, marking and sell 

of non-DOT specification fiber reinforced plastic cylinders built to DOT FRP–1 standard for 

use in transporting various flammable and 

non-flammable gases.(Modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 

[FR Doc. 07–2513 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4909–60–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund 

Request for Public Comments, New 

Markets Tax Credit Program 

AGENCY: Community Development 

Financial Institutions Fund, Department 

of the Treasury. 

SUMMARY: This document invites 

comments from the public on certain 

issues regarding how, for purposes of 

the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) 

Program, the Community Development 

Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund 

should ensure that non-metropolitan 

counties receive a proportional 

allocation of Qualified Equity 

Investments (QEIs). All materials 

submitted will be available for public 

inspection and copying. 

DATES: All comments and submissions 

must be received by July 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

by mail to: NMTC Program Manager, 

CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the 

Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 

200 South, Washington, DC 20005; by email to cdfihelp@cdfi.treas.gov; or by 

facsimile at (202) 622–7754. This is not 

a toll free number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding the CDFI Fund 

and its programs may be downloaded 

from the CDFI Fund’s Web site at 

http://www.cdfifund.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

121(a) of the Community Renewal Tax 

Relief Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–554), 

enacted on December 21, 2000, 

amended the Internal Revenue Code 

(IRC) by adding IRC section 45D, New 

Markets Tax Credit. Taxpayers that 

make QEIs in qualified Community 

Development Entities (CDEs) may claim 

the NMTC. Under section 45D(a)(2), the 

NMTC is equal to five percent of the QEI 

the first three years and six percent for 

the next four years for a total of 39 

percent. The CDE must use substantially 

all of the cash from a QEI to make 

Qualified Low-Income Community 

Investments (QLICIs). IRC section 

45D(d)(1) defines a QLICI as: (A) Any 

capital or equity investment in, or loan 

to, any Qualified Active Low-Income 

Community Business (QALICB); (B) the 

purchase from another CDE of any loan 

made by such entity which is a QLICI; 

(C) financial counseling and other 

services to businesses located in, and 

residents of, low-income communities; 

and (D) any equity investment in, or 

loan to, a CDE. 

Under IRC section 45D(c)(1), a CDE is 

any domestic corporation or partnership 

if: (A) The primary mission of the entity 

is to serve, or provide investment 

capital for, low-income communities or 

low-income persons; (B) the entity 

maintains accountability to residents of 

low-income communities through their 

representation on any governing board 

of the entity or on any advisory board 

to the entity; and (C) the entity is 

certified as a CDE by the Secretary. 

The term low-income community, as 

defined under IRC section 45D(e)(1), 

means any population census tract in 

which: (A) The poverty rate is at least 

20 percent; or (B)(i) in the case of a tract 

not located within a metropolitan area, 

the median family income for such tract 

does not exceed 80 percent of statewide 

median family income, or (ii) in the case 

of a tract located within a metropolitan 

area, the median family income for such 

tract does not exceed 80 percent of the 

greater of statewide median family 

income or the metropolitan area median 

family income. In addition, pursuant to 

the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 

(Pub. L. 108–357), certain other census 

tracts and Targeted Populations may be 

treated as low-income communities. 

Section 102(b)(6) of the Tax Relief and 

Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–

432) (the 2006 Act) amended IRC 

section 45D(i)(6) to provide that the 

Secretary shall prescribe regulations to 

ensure that non-metropolitan counties 

receive a proportional allocation of 

QEIs. 

For purposes of the NMTC Program, 

the CDFI Fund defines metropolitan 

area and non-metropolitan area in 

accordance with OMB Bulletin No. 04–

03 (Update of Statistical Area 

Definitions and Additional Guidance on 

Their Uses) and based on 2000 Census 

data. 

The CDFI Fund is seeking comments 

from the public regarding how it should 

ensure that non-metropolitan counties 

receive a proportional allocation of 

QEIs. Commentators are encouraged to 

consider, at a minimum, the following 

issues: 

1. Allocations of QEIs. IRC section 

45D(i)(6) requires that the Secretary 

ensure that non-metropolitan areas 

receive a proportional allocation of 

QEIs. However, the CDFI Fund does not 

allocate QEIs to geographic areas, per se. 

Rather, the CDFI Fund allocates NMTCs 

to CDEs, the vast majority of which have 

service areas encompassing statewide, 

multi-state or national markets, and 

which include both metropolitan and 

non-metropolitan counties. Further, the 

location of an allocatee CDE’s 

headquarters is neither indicative of the 

geographic locations of its investors (the 

sources of its QEIs), nor of where it 

intends to make its QLICIs. An allocatee 

headquartered in a non-metropolitan 

area may make QLICIs in metropolitan 

areas, just as an allocatee headquartered 

in a metropolitan area may make QLICIs 

in non-metropolitan areas. Similarly, an 

allocatee’s investors may be located in 

metropolitan or non-metropolitan 

counties. Consequently, commentators 

are asked to consider several possible 

alternatives for ensuring that nonmetropolitan areas receive a 

proportional allocation of QEIs: 

(a) Location of investors. Should the 

CDFI Fund endeavor to ensure that a 

desired proportion of investors (those 

persons or entities making QEIs in 

CDEs) reside or be headquartered in 

non-metropolitan counties? 

(b) Location 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 

headquartered in non-metropolitan 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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