CDFI and NACA Program Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 13510-13516 [2023-04348]
Download as PDF
13510
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
D Outfitting and Furnishings—ship
fittings, hull compartmentation (grating,
ladders), motion compensation
(walkway, accommodation ladder),
coatings, living spaces (modular cabins).
In this RFI, these items are referred to
collectively as the ‘‘Foreign
Components.’’ MARAD encourages
commenters to identify ship
components listed above that currently
have sufficient domestic availability to
support Title XI projects, or to
recommend modifications to the above
listed components or categories of
components so domestic sources may be
more readily identified. MARAD also
encourages commenters to identify
other components or categories of
components that should be considered
‘‘Foreign Components.’’
MARAD is providing the following
questions to prompt feedback. MARAD
encourages public comment on any or
all of these questions, and also seeks
any other information commenters
believe is relevant.
In answering the questions below,
MARAD asks that you specify in your
written comments which question(s)
you are answering and what type of ship
component(s) you are discussing.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
General Questions on the Listed
Foreign Components
1. Are there any ship components
commonly used in Title XI projects that
are not identified in this RFI as Foreign
Components but which, as a commercial
shipbuilder or ship operator, you
believe should be brought to MARAD’s
attention as a Foreign Component not
available in the US? If so, for each such
identified ship component, please
provide the following information:
a. What is the basis and need for that
ship component to be included as a
Foreign Component?
b. Please confirm that the component
is not part of the hull or superstructure.
c. What is the typical total cost of the
identified Foreign Component?
d. How much does the cost vary for
each Foreign Component? Why does the
cost vary?
e. What is the average delivery
timeline for each Foreign Component
identified? Please be specific about
which ship component you are
referencing.
f. How much does delivery time vary
for each Foreign Component? Why does
the delivery time vary?
g. Where is the place of manufacture
of the Foreign Component?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Manufacturer(s) Ability To Meet Title
XI’s Existing Domestic Content
Requirement
2. Are you aware of any existing ship
component manufacturers that can meet
the Title XI domestic content
requirement for one or more of the
Foreign Components? If so, for each
identified ship component, please
provide the following information:
a. The make, model, and/or
specifications of the identified ship
component, as well as its place of final
manufacture.
b. Explain how the component is
designed for use in the marine
environment.
c. How many of the ship components
meeting Title XI’s existing domestic
content requirement can be
manufactured per year?
d. What is the price typically paid for
the domestic ship component?
e. What is the typical delivery
timeline for the domestic ship
component?
f. How much does delivery time vary
for each domestic ship component?
Why does the delivery time vary?
g. Where is the place of manufacture
of the component?
3. For those Foreign Components that
currently cannot meet Title XI’s
domestic content requirement, what
steps can be taken to provide ship
components that meet Title XI’s existing
domestic content requirement? How
long might it take to undertake those
steps? What is the volume of ship
components that could be shifted to
manufacture in compliance with Title
XI’s domestic content requirement? Can
that volume be ramped up over time?
4. For manufacturers, ship builders,
ship operators, and any other affected
stakeholders, what are the anticipated
administrative costs associated with
complying with the Title XI domestic
content requirement?
Ability To Maximize Domestic Content,
Services, and Labor
5. Please provide information on how
the domestic content of ships systems
(including their components could be
maximized (even if all ship components
cannot comply with the Title XI
domestic content requirement).
6. Please provide information on how
domestic services and labor used in the
manufacturing of specific ship
components could be maximized (even
if the item cannot comply with the Title
XI domestic content requirement).
7. In the absence of a waiver, how
would the exclusion of the cost of
foreign components from the amount of
a loan under Title XI affect the financial
feasibility of constructing a vessel?
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8. How else might MARAD spur and
incentivize domestic availability of ship
components commonly used in Title XI
projects?
(Authority: 46 U.S.C. chapter 537; 49 CFR
1.93(a), 46 CFR part 298)
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr.,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023–04352 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund
CDFI and NACA Program Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA)
Notice and request for public
comment.
ACTION:
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 (PRA) of
1995. Currently, the Community
Development Financial Institutions
Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of
the Treasury, is soliciting comments
concerning the Community
Development Financial Institutions
Program (CDFI Program) and the Native
American CDFI Assistance Program
(NACA Program) Financial Assistance
(FA) and Technical Assistance (TA)
Applications, for the Fiscal Year (FY)
2023–FY 2025 funding rounds
(hereafter, the Application or
Applications). The FA Application
includes optional questions that
addresses Healthy Food Financing
Initiative—Financial Assistance (HFFI–
FA), Persistent Poverty Counties—
Financial Assistance (PPC–FA) and
Disability Funds—Financial Assistance
(DF–FA). Information on CDFI Program
and NACA Program Applications can be
found on the CDFI Fund’s website at
https://www.cdfifund.gov/programstraining/programs/cdfi-program for the
CDFI Program and at https://
www.cdfifund.gov/programs-training/
programs/native-initiatives for the
NACA Program. The CDFI Fund is
required by law to make the
Applications publicly available for
comment prior to submission for a new
PRA number.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
Written comments must be
received on or before May 12, 2023 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments via
email to Pooja Patel, CDFI Program and
NACA Program Manager, CDFI Fund, at
cdfihelp@cdfi.treas.gov or via Service
Request in the Awards Management
Information System (AMIS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pooja P. Patel, CDFI Program and NACA
Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20220, or by phone (202) 653–0421,
or email to cdfihelp@cdfi.treas.gov.
Other information regarding the CDFI
Fund and its programs may be obtained
on the CDFI Fund website at https://
www.cdfifund.gov.
Two documents are provided to aid
the public in providing comments
requested by this Notice. The FA
Application and TA Application
Templates, which present the questions
that will comprise the online FA and
TA Applications, show revisions
relative to the existing Applications as
highlighted in yellow. All documents
may be obtained from the Request for
Public Comments page of the CDFI
Fund’s website at https://
www.cdfifund.gov/requests-forcomments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: CDFI Program and NACA
Program Financial Assistance and
Technical Assistance Applications.
OMB Number: 1559–0021.
Abstract: The CDFI Program is
authorized by the Riegle Community
Development Banking and Financial
Institutions Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–
325, 12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). Funding for
the CDFI Program and the NACA
Program is made available by Congress
to the CDFI Fund through its annual
appropriations. The regulations
governing the CDFI Program are found
at 12 CFR parts 1805 and 1815 (the
Regulations) and set forth evaluation
criteria and other program requirements.
For a complete understanding of the
programs, the CDFI Fund encourages
Applicants to review the Regulations,
the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA)
for the FY 2022 Application round of
the CDFI Program (87 FR 8085, February
11, 2022), the NOFA for the FY 2022
Application round of the NACA
Program (87 FR 8107, February 11,
2022), the Applications, and the
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (2
CFR part 200) (Uniform Administrative
Requirements). Capitalized terms in this
Request for Public Comment are defined
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
in the CDFI Program’s authorizing
statute, the Regulations, the FY 2022
CDFI Program and NACA Program
NOFAs, the Applications, Application
materials, and the Uniform
Administrative Requirements. Through
the CDFI Program and NACA Program’s
FA and TA awards, the CDFI Fund
invests in and builds the capacity of forprofit and nonprofit community based
lending organizations known as
Community Development Financial
Institutions (CDFIs).
CDFI Program and NACA Program
award Recipients will be competitively
selected after the CDFI Fund’s careful
review of their Applications. The
proposed FA Application requires the
submission of quantitative and
qualitative information about the
Applicant’s Business Strategy, Products
and Services, Market and Competitive
Analysis, Management and Staffing,
Financial Position, and Growth and
Projections. The proposed TA
Application requires the submission of
quantitative and qualitative information
about CDFI Certification Qualifications,
an Organizational Overview, Business
Strategy, and Use of Funds. Please refer
to the FY 2022 CDFI Program and
NACA Program NOFAs for additional
guidance on the review and Application
process for past funding rounds.
This request for public comment
seeks to gather information on the CDFI
Program and NACA Program TA and FA
Applications, which include the
optional questions for PPC–FA, HFFI–
FA and DF–FA.
Current Actions: Renewal of existing
Information Collection.
Type of Review: Regular Review.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit institutions, non-profit
entities, and State, local and Tribal
entities participating in CDFI Fund
programs.
Estimated Number of Respondents for
Financial Assistance: 425.
Estimated Annual Time per
Respondent for Financial Assistance
including optional questions: 145 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours for Financial Assistance: 61,625.
Estimated Number of Respondents for
Technical Assistance: 225.
Estimated Annual Time per
Respondent for Technical Assistance:
80 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours for Technical Assistance: 18,000.
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 CDFI Fund’s
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13511
website at https://www.cdfifund.gov. The
CDFI Fund is seeking: (a) specific input
on the content of the FA Application for
the CDFI and NACA Programs; (b)
specific input on the content of the TA
Application for the CDFI and NACA
Programs; (c) specific input on the
content of the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative—Financial Assistance (HFFI–
FA) Application; (d) specific input on
the content of the Persistent Poverty
Counties—Financial Assistance (PPC–
FA) Application; (e) specific input on
the content of the Disability Funds—
Financial Assistance (DF–FA)
Application; (f) general input on other
CDFI Program and NACA Programrelated topics and considerations. The
Application Templates for comment
may be obtained on the CDFI Fund’s
website at https://www.cdfifund.gov/
requests-for-comments.
Comments concerning the
Applications 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. In addition, the CDFI Fund
requests comments in response to the
following general questions about the
Applications. Commenters should
ensure that their comments are clearly
labeled corresponding to each section
and question number.
A. Financial Assistance (FA)
Application
The following questions are related to
the burden and information requested in
the FA Application, and responses may
be used to make modifications to the
information being requested in the FA
Application. Commenters should clearly
distinguish their comments related to
this section when providing their
responses and ensure comments are
clearly labeled corresponding to each
section and question number.
1. Is the information that is proposed
to be collected by the Application
necessary and appropriate for the CDFI
Fund to consider for the purpose of
making award decisions?
2. Are certain data fields, questions or
tables redundant or unnecessary? If yes,
which ones and why?
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
13512
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
3. Should any data fields, questions or
tables be added to ensure collection of
relevant information?
4. Are there requests for data in the
Application that Applicants do not have
readily available and that are
burdensome to obtain and/or calculate?
5. Are any of the questions
particularly burdensome or difficult to
answer? If yes, which ones and why?
6. Are there questions that lack clarity
as to intent or purpose? If yes, which
questions, and what needs to be
clarified in order for Applicants to
provide a comprehensive response?
7. Are the character limitations for
narrative responses appropriate? Should
certain questions allow additional or
fewer characters? If yes, please specify.
8. What additional guidance can the
CDFI Fund provide in order to assist
Applicants with completing an FA
Application?
9. Business Plan. In general, does the
data and information requested in the
Application allow an Applicant to
demonstrate its ability explain its
business plan and ability to meet the FA
Objectives described in the Application?
10. Business Plan. Is the data and
information requested in the
Application to assess the business plan
adequate to assess the different CDFI
activities?
11. Business Plan. What, if any,
additional data and information should
be collected to assess business plan
activities?
12. Beneficiary Data. The CDFI Fund
currently collects beneficiary data by
income level in the Beneficiary
Snapshot table to assess how well an
organization is serving communities in
economic distress. Reported data in this
table combines those receiving
Development Services and those
receiving Financial Products/Financial
Services and is only requested for the
Applicant’s most recent historic fiscal
year.
a. The CDFI Fund is proposing to
request beneficiary data separately for
(1) Financial Products/Financial
Services and (2) Development Services
to provide a more accurate depiction of
beneficiaries served. Is the proposal for
separating out the beneficiary data
points between beneficiaries receiving
Financial Products/Financial Services
versus those receiving Development
Services appropriate? If not, why not?
Will this proposed change be difficult or
overly burdensome to report?
b. The CDFI Fund is considering to
request beneficiary data projections for
the three year Period of Performance to
help assess the impact an Applicant’s
proposed activity with the FA award. Is
the proposal to collect projected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
beneficiary data appropriate for use in
assessing the impacts of an Applicant’s
proposed activity with the FA award? If
not, why not? Will this proposed data
collection be difficult or overly
burdensome to report?
13. FA Objectives. Currently, FA
Applicants can select from the following
list of seven FA Objectives (FAO): 1–1:
Increase Volume of Financial Products,
1–2: Increase Volume of Financial
Services, 1–3: New Geographic Area(s),
1–4: New Financial Product(s), 1–5:
New Financial Service(s), 1–6: New
Development Service(s), and 1–7: New
Targeted Population(s). The CDFI Fund
proposes to eliminate certain FAOs that
are difficult to measure, evaluate and
administer. Further, these FAOs are
rarely selected by Applicants.
a. The CDFI Fund proposes to
eliminate FAO 1–1: Increase Volume of
Financial Services from the list of FAOs
to select in the FA Application.
However, Financial Services is still an
eligible use of the FA award. Would all
types of regulated CDFIs still be
interested in applying if they could no
longer select this FA Objective and
required to select another one instead?
If no, why not?
b. The CDFI Fund proposes to
eliminate FAO 1–5: New Financial
Services from the list of FAOs to select
in the FA Application. However,
Financial Services is still an eligible use
of the FA award. Would all types of
regulated CDFIs still be interested in
applying if they could no longer select
this FA Objective and required to select
another one instead? If no, why not?
c. The CDFI Fund proposes to
eliminate FAO 1–6: New Development
Services from the list of FAOs to select
in the FA Application. However,
Development Services is still an eligible
use of the FA award. Would all types of
CDFIs still be interested in applying if
they could no longer select this FA
Objective and required to select another
one instead? If no, why not?
14. FA Objectives. Currently, to select
FAO 1–1: Increase Volume of Financial
Products, an Applicant’s three years of
projected lending activity must exceed
its historic three years of lending
activity plus the FA award amount
(‘‘Increase in Volume’’). The Increase in
Volume becomes a Performance Goal &
Measure (PG&M) in the Assistance
Agreement. The CDFI Fund proposes to
change the Increase in Volume formula
for FAO 1–1: Increase Volume of
Financial Products to be more
consistent with other FAO PG&Ms and
to more directly align with the amount
of the FA award. One option is for the
formula to be a multiplier of the award
amount plus the Applicant’s historic
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
three years of lending activity. For
example, for a $1 million award, if the
multiplier were 2 and the Applicant’s
three most recent years of historic of
lending were $10 million, the FAO 1:1:
Increase Volume of Financial Products
PG&M would be $12 million ($1 million
FA award times multiplier of 2 plus $10
million historic lending equals $12
million). For more detailed explanation
of the proposed formula, please see
Question 4d in the FA Application
Template, found on the CDFI Fund’s
website at https://www.cdfifund.gov/
requests-for-comments. The CDFI Fund
is seeking input on the proposed change
to FAO 1–1: Increase Volume of
Financial Products. Is a multiplier of the
FA award plus three years of historic
lending an appropriate formula for FAO
1–1: Increase Volume of Financial
Products PG&M? If yes, should the CDFI
Fund require a standard multiplier or
allow Applicants to propose their own
multiplier as part of the Application? If
a standard multiplier, what should the
multiplier be? If a multiplier of the
award plus three years of historic
lending is not appropriate, why is it not
an appropriate formula and what should
the formula be?
15. Ability to Serve Native
Communities. Should the CDFI Fund
adjust its FA Application in order to
better collect information and evaluate
an Applicant’s ability to serve the
unique needs of Native Communities? If
yes, what questions should the CDFI
Fund include in the FA Application and
what evaluation factors should the CDFI
Fund consider when evaluating an
Applicant’s ability to serve the unique
needs of Native Communities?
B. Technical Assistance (TA)
Application
The following questions are related to
the burden and information requested in
the TA Application, and responses may
be used to make modifications to the
information being requested in the TA
Application. Commenters should clearly
distinguish their comments related to
this section when providing their
responses and ensure comments are
clearly labeled corresponding to each
section and question number.
1. Is the information that is proposed
to be collected by the Application
necessary and appropriate for the CDFI
Fund to consider for the purpose of
making award decisions?
2. Are certain data fields, questions or
tables redundant or unnecessary? If yes,
which ones and why?
3. Should any data fields, questions or
tables be added to ensure collection of
relevant information?
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
4. Are there requests for data in the
Application that Applicants do not have
readily available or that are burdensome
to obtain and/or calculate?
5. Are any of the questions
particularly burdensome or difficult to
answer? If yes, which ones and why?
6. Are there questions that lack clarity
as to intent or purpose? If yes, which
questions, and what needs to be
clarified in order for Applicants to
provide a comprehensive response?
7. Are the character limitations for
narrative responses appropriate? Should
certain questions allow additional or
fewer characters? If so, please specify.
8. What additional guidance can the
CDFI Fund provide in order to assist
Applicants with completing a TA
Application?
9. Evaluation Criteria by Application
Type. Do the questions in the TA
Application allow the Applicant to
clearly address the evaluation criteria
for the following Applicant types? If no,
what additional information should be
included in the Application for each
Applicant type?
(a) An Emerging and Certifiable CDFI
and its ability to achieve certification;
(b) A Sponsoring Entity and its ability
to create and receive certification for a
new CDFI; and
(c) A Certified CDFI and its ability to
build its capacity to expand operations,
offer new products or services, or
increase the volume of current business?
10. Capacity to Serve Target
Market(s). The primary purpose of
making a TA award to a Certified CDFI
is to increase its capacity to serve its
Target Market(s). How can the CDFI
Program and NACA Program update the
TA Application in order to make a more
accurate determination as to whether or
not a TA award will increase a Certified
CDFI’s capacity to serve its Target
Market(s)?
11. Eligible Uses of Funds. Does the
current TA Application, related
guidance materials, and NOFAs provide
sufficient clarity to help potential
Applicants clearly understand what are,
and are not, eligible uses of TA funds?
12. Ability to Serve Native
Communities. Should the CDFI Fund
adjust its TA Application in order to
better collect information and evaluate
an Applicant’s ability to serve the
unique needs of Native Communities? If
yes, what questions should the CDFI
Fund include in the TA Application and
what evaluation factors should the CDFI
Fund consider when evaluating an
Applicant’s ability to serve the unique
needs of Native Communities?
13. Sponsoring Entities. The NACA
Program allows organizations that serve
Native Communities, Sponsoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Entities, to apply for TA awards in order
to create a new legal entity that will
become a Certified CDFI. In recent
history, Sponsoring Entities have largely
struggled to find success in establishing
a Certified CDFI. Between 2013 and
2020, only two Sponsoring Entities have
created new legal entities that
ultimately achieved CDFI Certification.
a. What questions should the
Application include in order to better
assess a Sponsoring Entity’s ability to
successfully create an emerging CDFI
within one year and ensure that the
emerging CDFI achieves CDFI
Certification within four years?
b. Should the CDFI Fund require
Sponsoring Entities to create the new
legal entity that will become the
Certified CDFI before being eligible to
receive a NACA TA award?
C. Healthy Food Financing Initiative—
Financial Assistance (HFFI–FA)
Application
The following questions are related to
the burden and information requested in
the HFFI–FA Application, and
responses may be used to make
modifications to the information being
requested in the HFFI–FA Application.
Commenters should clearly distinguish
their comments related to this section
when providing their responses and
ensure comments are clearly labeled
corresponding to each section and
question number.
1. Is the information being collected
sufficient to determine whether an
Applicant (1) is financing eligible
Healthy Foods transactions and (2) can
deploy an HFFI–FA award? If no, what
other information should the CDFI Fund
collect in order to determine whether an
Applicant is financing eligible Healthy
Foods transactions and can deploy an
HFFI–FA award?
D. Persistent Poverty Counties—
Financial Assistance (PPC–FA)
Application
The following questions are related to
the burden and information requested in
the PPC–FA Application, and responses
may be used to make modifications to
the information being requested in the
PPC–FA Application Commenters
should clearly distinguish their
comments related to this section when
providing their responses and ensure
comments are clearly labeled
corresponding to each section and
question number.
1. Is the information collected
sufficient to determine whether an
Applicant (1) is providing eligible
financing in Persistent Poverty Counties
and (2) can deploy a PPC–FA award?
What other information should the CDFI
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13513
Fund consider in order to determine
whether an Applicant is providing
financing in Persistent Poverty Counties
and can deploy a PPC–FA award?
E. Disability Funds—Financial
Assistance (DF–FA) Application
The following questions are related to
the burden and information requested in
the DF–FA Application, and responses
may be used to make modifications to
the information being requested in the
DF–FA Application. Commenters
should clearly distinguish their
comments related to this section when
providing their responses and ensure
comments are clearly labeled
corresponding to each section and
question number.
1. Is the information collected
sufficient to determine whether an
Applicant (1) is financing eligible DF–
FA transactions and (2) can deploy a
DF–FA award? What other information
should the CDFI Fund consider in order
to determine whether an Applicant is
financing eligible DF–FA transactions
and can deploy a DF–FA award?
F. Other CDFI Program and NACA
Program-Related Topics and
Considerations
The following questions are related to
CDFI Program and NACA Program
policy topics and will not impact the
burden or information requested in the
Applications. Responses to these
questions may inform future areas of
focus for program design and
information requested in future
Applications. Commentators should
clearly distinguish their comments
related to this section when providing
their responses.
1. Measuring Economic Distress. The
CDFI Fund is considering developing
place-based indicators to measure
economic distress in the communities
where CDFIs invest their dollars at the
census tract level.
a. Are the following indicators
appropriate to measure track record of
serving economically distressed
communities/populations? What, if any,
other metrics should be used to measure
the level of economic distress of
communities/populations served?
i. Median Family Income (MFI):
Calculated by dividing MFI of the
census tract by the appropriate
benchmark (Metropolitan Statistical
Area MFI, state MFI, national metro
MFI, or national non-metro MFI). For
example, if MFI share is 136.9%, it
means the census tract has an MFI that
is 36.9% larger than the corresponding
geographic benchmark. The benchmark
used to calculate the MFI share of a tract
is dependent on whether the census
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
13514
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
tract is within a metro or non-metro
area. Within a metropolitan area, the
Metropolitan Statistical Area MFI or the
national metropolitan area MFI,
whichever is greater is used. Outside of
a metropolitan area, the statewide nonmetropolitan area MFI or the national
non-metropolitan area MFI, whichever
is greater is used.
ii. Unemployment Rate: Represents
the number of unemployed people
living in the census tract as a percentage
of the labor force (the sum of the
employed and unemployed).
iii. Poverty Rates: The ratio of the
number of people living in the census
tract whose income falls below the
poverty line (minimum level of income
deemed adequate in a particular area) as
a percent of the population.
iv. Historical Poverty: An average of
the poverty rates of people living in the
census tract in the most current and
previous two decennial censuses for the
census tract.
v. Percentage of Other Targeted
Populations residing in the underlying
census tracts: Represents the number of
OTPs living in the census tract as a
percentage of the population.
b. For CDFIs with Low Income Target
Population or Other Targeted
Population Target Markets (versus
geographically based Target Markets),
are the indicators listed above in
Question 1. appropriate to measure the
track record of serving economically
distressed communities/populations?
What, if any, other metrics should be
used to measure the level of economic
distress of communities/populations
served?
2. Deep Impact Lending. In addition
to assessing an Applicant’s track record
serving economically distressed
communities/populations and creating
economic opportunities, the CDFI Fund
is interested in incorporating an
Applicant’s commitment to ‘‘deep
impact’’ lending/investment in its
projected activity as part of the
evaluation and/or compliance process.
‘‘Deep impact’’ lending/investment is
financing activities that reach the
hardest to serve borrowers and most
underserved communities/populations.
a. Please provide input on the
proposed definitions/metrics to qualify
as ‘‘deep impact’’ lending, as defined by
the U.S. Department of Treasury’s
Emergency Capital Investment Program
(ECIP) Rate Reduction Incentive
Guidelines. Are the following
definitions appropriate to measure
‘‘deep impact’’ lending/investment for
CDFIs? If not, why not? What, if any,
other definitions/metrics should be used
to qualify as ‘‘deep impact’’ lending/
investment?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
i. Lending/investment to Low-Income
Borrowers. Low-Income means equal to
or less than 80% of the area median
income.
ii. Mortgage Lending to Other
Targeted Populations.
iii. Lending/investment in Persistent
Poverty Counties (PPC): PPC includes
any county, including county equivalent
areas in Puerto Rico, that has had 20%
or more of its population living in
poverty over the past 30 years, as
measured by the 1990 and 2000
decennial censuses and the 2011–2015
5-year data series available from the
American Community Survey of the
Bureau of the Census or any other
territory or possession of the United
States that has had 20% or more of its
population living in poverty over the
past 30 years, as measured by the 1990,
2000 and 2010 Island Areas Decennial
Censuses, or equivalent data, of the
Bureau of the Census.
iv. Lending/investments in Indian
Reservations and Native Hawaiian
Homelands.
v. Lending/investments in U.S.
Territories: U.S. Territories include
American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
vi. Lending/investments to
Underserved Small Businesses: A loan/
investment made to a business with
revenues that do not exceed $100,000 or
that is majority owned by individual(s)
that are low income and/or from Other
Targeted Populations.
vii. Deeply Affordable Housing
Financing: Financing for any (1)
affordable housing units restricted to
households earning below 30% of AMI
for a period not less than 10 years,
prorated based on the percentage that
such units make up the total number of
housing units; or (2) affordable housing
development project in a ‘‘high
opportunity area’’ as defined by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA).
viii. Public Welfare and Community
Development Investments: Public
Welfare Investments pursuant to 12
U.S.C. 24(eleventh) or 12 U.S.C. 338a if
they primarily benefit Low-Income or
Minority individuals or businesses.
b. The CDFI Fund is contemplating
adding a CDFI’s commitment to engage
in ‘‘deep impact’’ lending going forward
as part of the evaluation process and/or
compliance process. As such, the CDFI
Fund is considering adding a new
PG&M based on an Applicant’s
projected activity for ‘‘deep impact’’
lending and investment. The new PG&M
would be an additional performance
goal and would not replace existing
PG&Ms. Is it appropriate to consider
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘deep impact’’ lending/investment as
part of the evaluation process? How
should such a PG&M be structured—as
a percentage of overall projected
activity, a percentage of the FA award
amount, a dollar volume commitment to
deep impact lending/investment, or
something else (please describe)?
3. Net Asset Ratio. The CDFI Fund is
interested in prioritizing FA awards to
CDFIs that are most effectively
leveraging their balance sheet and the
resources they already have available to
them, and for which an FA award is the
most essential for the CDFI’s growth and
ability to leverage additional funds to
serve communities in need. A CDFI’s
Net Asset Ratio represents a CDFI’s net
assets compared to its total assets and
can be a measure of the overall capital
structure of an organization. Is a CDFI’s
Net Asset Ratio the appropriate measure
to assess if a CDFI is effectively utilizing
its balance to leverage resources? If yes,
what should the target Net Asset Ratio
be? If not, what is the appropriate
measure(s) and target benchmark(s)?
4. Small and Emerging CDFI
Assistance. CDFIs may qualify as Small
and Emerging CDFI Assistance (SECA)
Applicants if their asset size does not
exceed a pre-determined maximum
amount based on financial institution
type OR if they have conducted
financing activities for four years or less
prior to the opening of the funding
round. Certified CDFIs that exceed the
pre-determined maximum asset size
thresholds and have more than four
years of financing activity are
considered as Core Applicants.
Currently, SECA Applicants have
different Application requirements and
evaluation parameters than Core
Applicants because of their small and/
or emerging status. Mainly, Matching
Funds requirements are typically
waived for SECA Applicants. Also, a
higher percentage of the SECA
Applicant pool progresses from Step 3
to Step 4 of the award evaluation
process (the top 70% of SECA
Applicants versus top 60% of Core
Applicants).
a. The CDFI Fund is seeking input on
whether there should there be a
maximum number of three FA awards a
CDFI can receive as a SECA Applicant.
In other words, should CDFIs be
required to apply as Core Applicants
after they receive a maximum number of
three FA awards under the SECA
designation, regardless of asset size or
financial activity start date of the CDFI?
If not three, what should that maximum
number of SECA awards be? If there
should be no limit on the number of FA
awards that a CDFI can receive as a
SECA Applicant, why not?
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
b. As noted above, organizations may
qualify for SECA if they started
financing activities no more than four
years prior to the opening of the funding
round, regardless of asset size. Is the
start date for financing activity to
qualify for SECA appropriate? If not,
what should it be? What, if any, other
changes would you make to the
financing activity start date component
of the SECA definition?
5. Small and Emerging CDFI
Assistance. As noted above,
organizations may qualify as SECA
Applicants if their asset size does not
exceed a pre-determined maximum
amount based on financial institution
type, regardless of financial activity start
date. SECA asset size thresholds have
not been uniformly assessed and
updated across all financial institutions
types. The CDFI Fund is seeking input
on the SECA maximum total asset size
thresholds as follows:
a. Banks: Updating the threshold from
$250 million to $346 million for banks/
bank holding companies, which
corresponds to the FY 2022 Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) asset size
threshold for small banks set by the
Federal bank regulatory agencies. This
practice is consistent with the CDFI
Fund’s Bank Enterprise Award (BEA)
Program, which uses asset size classes
that correspond to CRA asset size
thresholds in determining the cut off for
small institutions. Should the threshold
be updated? If yes, is $346 million the
appropriate threshold? If not, what is
the appropriate threshold and why?
Should the threshold be updated
regularly to correspond with updates to
the CRA asset size threshold for small
institutions?
b. Credit Unions: Retaining the
current threshold of $100 million for
credit unions, which aligns with the
current National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) definition for
small institutions. Should this threshold
be retained? If it should not be retained,
what is the appropriate threshold and
why? Should the threshold be updated
regularly to correspond with updates to
NCUA’s definition for small
institutions?
c. Unregulated Institutions: The SECA
asset size threshold for unregulated
institutions is $5 million and has not
been updated since 2006. The CDFI
Fund is considering updating the SECA
asset threshold for unregulated
institutions. One option is to adjust the
current $5 million threshold for
inflation using the Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers (CPI–W), the same
index used by the Federal Reserve
Board and Federal Depository
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Institution Corporation (FDIC) in
adjusting its threshold amounts for
small banks. Using the CPI–W to adjust
the $5 million threshold in 2006 dollars
would represent approximately $7.5
million in 2022 dollars. Should the
threshold be updated? If yes, is $7.5
million the appropriate threshold? If
$7.5 million is not the appropriate
threshold, what is the appropriate
threshold and why? If the threshold
should not change, why should it
remain $5 million? Should the
threshold be updated regularly? If not,
why not? If yes, is the CPI–W the
appropriate inflation factor to use? If
not, what source should be used as the
benchmark for the updates?
6. Small and Emerging CDFI
Assistance. Per the FY 2022 NOFA, the
maximum FA award request for SECA
Applicants is currently $700,000
whereas the maximum FA award
request for Core Applicants is $1
million. Currently an FA Applicant that
meets SECA requirements (called
‘‘SECA qualified Applicant’’) may
choose to apply as a Core Applicant if
the Applicant wants to request more
than the $700,000 SECA maximum
award request (up to the $1 million
maximum award request for Core
Applicants). SECA qualified Applicants
that apply as Core are treated as Core
Applicants, and are held to the
Application requirements and
evaluation parameters of a Core
Applicant. The CDFI Fund is
considering removing the option for
SECA qualified Applicants to apply as
Core Applicants, therefore only
allowing SECA qualified Applicants to
apply under the SECA Application
(which would mean all SECA qualified
Applicants would be limited to the
lower maximum award request).
a. What feedback do CDFIs have on
removing the option for SECA qualified
organizations to apply as Core
Applicant?
b. Are there ways the CDFI Fund can
implement this change to minimize
impacts to the affected Applicants?
7. Funding Levels for CDFIs. The CDFI
Fund is prohibited by statute from
obligating more than $5 million in CDFI
and NACA Program awards, in the
aggregate, to any one organization and
its Subsidiaries and Affiliates during
any three-year period. Should the $5
million funding cap be reduced? If yes,
what should the funding cap be?
8. Funding Levels for CDFIs. Should
larger CDFIs be limited on the total
dollar amount or number of FA awards
they receive within a certain timeframe?
If yes, what should be the minimum
asset size to be classified as a larger
CDFI for each type of unregulated
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13515
institution, bank/bank holding
company, and credit union? For the
purposes of this Request for Public
Comment, the CDFI Fund proposes the
following asset sizes for ‘‘larger CDFIs’’:
• Banks with assets of more than $1.5
billion
• Credit Unions with assets of more
than $1 billion
• Unregulated institutions with assets
of more than $25 million
9. Funding Levels for CDFIs. Please
fill in the blanks for each for each
institution type of unregulated
institution, bank/bank holding
company, and credit union: ‘‘CDFIs
with asset size over $ll can receive a
maximum of $ll in CDFI and NACA
Program FA awards every ll years.’’
10. Continued Viability for CDFIs. The
Riegle Act requires that Applicants for
FA provide a comprehensive strategic
plan for the organization that contains a
business plan of not less than five years
in duration. The plan should
demonstrate that the Applicant will be
properly managed and will have the
capacity to operate as a CDFI that will
not be dependent upon assistance from
the CDFI Fund for continued viability.
a. To what extent are CDFIs reliant on
FA funding from the CDFI Fund for
their continued viability?
b. What do CDFIs need in order to be
independent from the CDFI Fund’s
assistance for continued viability?
Would a program model in which CDFIs
receive significantly larger award sizes
for a three- to five-year period support
viability independent from the CDFI
Fund? If not, what would support a
CDFI’s growth towards such
independence?
11. Sponsoring Entities. As noted
earlier, the NACA Program allows
organizations that primarily serve
Native Communities, Sponsoring
Entities, to apply for TA awards in order
to create a new legal entity that will
become a Certified CDFI. In recent
history, Sponsoring Entities have largely
struggled to find success in establishing
a Certified CDFI. Between 2013 and
2020, only two Sponsoring Entities have
created new legal entities that
ultimately achieved CDFI Certification.
Should the CDFI Fund consider
eliminating the Sponsoring Entity
model and focus resources on building
the capacity of emerging Native CDFIs
in other ways? If yes, please specify
other ways in which the CDFI Fund can
support the creation of new Native
CDFIs. If no, please specify why this
model is needed and what
enhancements would be beneficial to
increasing the success of Sponsoring
Entities creating a legal entity that
achieves CDFI Certification.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
13516
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
(Authority: Pub. L. 103–325; 12 U.S.C. 4703,
4703 note, 4710, 4717; 31 U.S.C. 321; 12 CFR
part 1805)
information collection and its expected
cost and burden and it includes the
actual data collection instrument.
DATES: Written comments and
Jodie L. Harris,
recommendations for the proposed
Director, Community Development Financial
information collection should be sent
Institutions Fund.
within 30 days of publication of this
[FR Doc. 2023–04348 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
BILLING CODE 4810–05–P
PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
United States Mint
search function. Refer to ‘‘OMB Control
No. 2900–0919.
Establish Prices for 2023 Morgan and
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peace Two-Coin Reverse Proof SetTM
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise
AGENCY: United States Mint, Department and Integration, Data Governance
Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW,
of the Treasury.
Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266–4688
ACTION: Notice.
or email maribel.aponte@va.gov. Please
SUMMARY: The United States Mint is
refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0919’’
announcing pricing for United States
in any correspondence.
Mint numismatic products in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
accordance with the table below:
Authority: Public Law 104–13; 44
U.S.C. 3501–3521.
2023 Retail
Title: Service Members’ Group Life
Product
price
Insurance—Traumatic Injury Protection
(TSGLI) Application for TSGLI Benefits
Morgan and Peace Two-Coin
Reverse Proof Set ............
$185 (SGLV 8600) And TSGLI Appeal
Request Form (SGLV 8600A)
OMB Control Number: 2900–0919.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kai
Type of Review: Extension of a
Washington, United States Mint, 801
currently approved collection.
9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220,
Abstract: The SGLV 8600 form is used
or call 1–202–354–7662.
by
the Department of Veterans Affairs to
Authority: Public Law 116–286.
request information in order to
Eric Anderson,
adjudicate TSGLI claims for benefits.
Executive Secretary, United States Mint.
The form is filled out by members or
former members of the uniformed
[FR Doc. 2023–04444 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
services who have suffered a traumatic
BILLING CODE 4810–37–P
injury while in service, and the
uniformed services approve or
disapprove the claim. If the uniformed
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
services approve the TSGLI claim, then
AFFAIRS
the insurer for the TSGLI program, The
[OMB Control No. 2900–0919]
Prudential Insurance Company of
America (Prudential), pays the claim.
Agency Information Collection Activity
The form is authorized by 38 U.S.C.
Under OMB Review: Servicemembers’
1980A and 38 CFR 9.20.
Group Life Insurance—Traumatic
The SGLV 8600a form is used by the
Injury Protection (TSGLI) Application
Department of Veterans Affairs to
for TSGLI Benefits and TSGLI Appeal
request information in order to
Request Form
adjudicate TSGLI appeals for benefits.
The form is filled out by members or
AGENCY: Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans former members of the uniformed
services who have suffered a traumatic
Affairs.
injury while in service and had their
ACTION: Notice.
TSGLI claim disapproved. The form is
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1980A and 38
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
CFR 9.20.
1995, this notice announces that the
An agency may not conduct or
Veterans Benefits Administration,
sponsor, and a person is not required to
Department of Veterans Affairs, will
respond to a collection of information
submit the collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
abstracted below to the Office of
control number. The Federal Register
Management and Budget (OMB) for
Notice with a 60-day comment period
review and comment. The PRA
soliciting comments on this collection
submission describes the nature of the
of information was published at: 87 FR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:33 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80262 on December 29, 2022, pages
80262.
Affected Public: Individuals or
Households.
Estimated Annual Burden: 190 hours.
Estimated Average Burden per
Respondent: 15 minutes.
Frequency of Response: One per year.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
758.
By direction of the Secretary.
Maribel Aponte,
VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of
Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance
Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023–04363 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program
AGENCY:
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA).
Notice of a re-establishment for
a matching program.
ACTION:
This computer matching
agreement sets forth the terms,
conditions, and safeguards under which
the Social Security Administration
(SSA) will disclose tax return
information to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health
Administration (VA/VHA). VA/VHA
will use the tax return information to
verify veterans’ employment status and
earnings to determine eligibility for its
health benefit programs.
DATES: Comments on this matching
program must be received no later than
April 3, 2023. If no public comment is
received during the period allowed for
comment or unless otherwise published
in the Federal Register by VA, the new
agreement will become effective a
minimum of 30 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register. If
VA receives public comments, VA shall
review the comments to determine
whether any changes to the notice are
necessary. This matching program will
be valid for 18 months from the effective
date of this notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted through www.Regulations.gov
or mailed to VA Privacy Service, 810
Vermont Avenue NW, (005R1A),
Washington, DC 20420. Comments
should indicate that they are submitted
in response to Computer Matching
Agreement Between The Social Security
Administration and The Department of
Veterans Affairs Veterans Health
Administration, Match #1052.
Comments received will be available at
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13510-13516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04348]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
CDFI and NACA Program Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
ACTION: Notice and request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (PRA) of 1995. Currently, the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of
the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Community
Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program) and the
Native American CDFI Assistance Program (NACA Program) Financial
Assistance (FA) and Technical Assistance (TA) Applications, for the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-FY 2025 funding rounds (hereafter, the
Application or Applications). The FA Application includes optional
questions that addresses Healthy Food Financing Initiative--Financial
Assistance (HFFI-FA), Persistent Poverty Counties--Financial Assistance
(PPC-FA) and Disability Funds--Financial Assistance (DF-FA).
Information on CDFI Program and NACA Program Applications can be found
on the CDFI Fund's website at https://www.cdfifund.gov/programs-training/programs/cdfi-program for the CDFI Program and at https://www.cdfifund.gov/programs-training/programs/native-initiatives for the
NACA Program. The CDFI Fund is required by law to make the Applications
publicly available for comment prior to submission for a new PRA
number.
[[Page 13511]]
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2023 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments via email to Pooja Patel, CDFI Program
and NACA Program Manager, CDFI Fund, at [email protected] or via
Service Request in the Awards Management Information System (AMIS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pooja P. Patel, CDFI Program and NACA
Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, or by phone (202) 653-
0421, or email to [email protected]. Other information regarding
the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained on the CDFI Fund website
at https://www.cdfifund.gov.
Two documents are provided to aid the public in providing comments
requested by this Notice. The FA Application and TA Application
Templates, which present the questions that will comprise the online FA
and TA Applications, show revisions relative to the existing
Applications as highlighted in yellow. All documents may be obtained
from the Request for Public Comments page of the CDFI Fund's website at
https://www.cdfifund.gov/requests-for-comments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: CDFI Program and NACA Program Financial Assistance and
Technical Assistance Applications.
OMB Number: 1559-0021.
Abstract: The CDFI Program is authorized by the Riegle Community
Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (Pub. L.
103-325, 12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). Funding for the CDFI Program and the
NACA Program is made available by Congress to the CDFI Fund through its
annual appropriations. The regulations governing the CDFI Program are
found at 12 CFR parts 1805 and 1815 (the Regulations) and set forth
evaluation criteria and other program requirements. For a complete
understanding of the programs, the CDFI Fund encourages Applicants to
review the Regulations, the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the
FY 2022 Application round of the CDFI Program (87 FR 8085, February 11,
2022), the NOFA for the FY 2022 Application round of the NACA Program
(87 FR 8107, February 11, 2022), the Applications, and the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) (Uniform Administrative
Requirements). Capitalized terms in this Request for Public Comment are
defined in the CDFI Program's authorizing statute, the Regulations, the
FY 2022 CDFI Program and NACA Program NOFAs, the Applications,
Application materials, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements.
Through the CDFI Program and NACA Program's FA and TA awards, the CDFI
Fund invests in and builds the capacity of for-profit and nonprofit
community based lending organizations known as Community Development
Financial Institutions (CDFIs).
CDFI Program and NACA Program award Recipients will be
competitively selected after the CDFI Fund's careful review of their
Applications. The proposed FA Application requires the submission of
quantitative and qualitative information about the Applicant's Business
Strategy, Products and Services, Market and Competitive Analysis,
Management and Staffing, Financial Position, and Growth and
Projections. The proposed TA Application requires the submission of
quantitative and qualitative information about CDFI Certification
Qualifications, an Organizational Overview, Business Strategy, and Use
of Funds. Please refer to the FY 2022 CDFI Program and NACA Program
NOFAs for additional guidance on the review and Application process for
past funding rounds.
This request for public comment seeks to gather information on the
CDFI Program and NACA Program TA and FA Applications, which include the
optional questions for PPC-FA, HFFI-FA and DF-FA.
Current Actions: Renewal of existing Information Collection.
Type of Review: Regular Review.
Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit institutions, non-
profit entities, and State, local and Tribal entities participating in
CDFI Fund programs.
Estimated Number of Respondents for Financial Assistance: 425.
Estimated Annual Time per Respondent for Financial Assistance
including optional questions: 145 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours for Financial Assistance:
61,625.
Estimated Number of Respondents for Technical Assistance: 225.
Estimated Annual Time per Respondent for Technical Assistance: 80
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours for Technical Assistance:
18,000.
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 CDFI Fund's website at https://www.cdfifund.gov. The CDFI Fund is seeking: (a) specific input on the
content of the FA Application for the CDFI and NACA Programs; (b)
specific input on the content of the TA Application for the CDFI and
NACA Programs; (c) specific input on the content of the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative--Financial Assistance (HFFI-FA) Application; (d)
specific input on the content of the Persistent Poverty Counties--
Financial Assistance (PPC-FA) Application; (e) specific input on the
content of the Disability Funds--Financial Assistance (DF-FA)
Application; (f) general input on other CDFI Program and NACA Program-
related topics and considerations. The Application Templates for
comment may be obtained on the CDFI Fund's website at https://www.cdfifund.gov/requests-for-comments.
Comments concerning the Applications 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. In addition, the
CDFI Fund requests comments in response to the following general
questions about the Applications. Commenters should ensure that their
comments are clearly labeled corresponding to each section and question
number.
A. Financial Assistance (FA) Application
The following questions are related to the burden and information
requested in the FA Application, and responses may be used to make
modifications to the information being requested in the FA Application.
Commenters should clearly distinguish their comments related to this
section when providing their responses and ensure comments are clearly
labeled corresponding to each section and question number.
1. Is the information that is proposed to be collected by the
Application necessary and appropriate for the CDFI Fund to consider for
the purpose of making award decisions?
2. Are certain data fields, questions or tables redundant or
unnecessary? If yes, which ones and why?
[[Page 13512]]
3. Should any data fields, questions or tables be added to ensure
collection of relevant information?
4. Are there requests for data in the Application that Applicants
do not have readily available and that are burdensome to obtain and/or
calculate?
5. Are any of the questions particularly burdensome or difficult to
answer? If yes, which ones and why?
6. Are there questions that lack clarity as to intent or purpose?
If yes, which questions, and what needs to be clarified in order for
Applicants to provide a comprehensive response?
7. Are the character limitations for narrative responses
appropriate? Should certain questions allow additional or fewer
characters? If yes, please specify.
8. What additional guidance can the CDFI Fund provide in order to
assist Applicants with completing an FA Application?
9. Business Plan. In general, does the data and information
requested in the Application allow an Applicant to demonstrate its
ability explain its business plan and ability to meet the FA Objectives
described in the Application?
10. Business Plan. Is the data and information requested in the
Application to assess the business plan adequate to assess the
different CDFI activities?
11. Business Plan. What, if any, additional data and information
should be collected to assess business plan activities?
12. Beneficiary Data. The CDFI Fund currently collects beneficiary
data by income level in the Beneficiary Snapshot table to assess how
well an organization is serving communities in economic distress.
Reported data in this table combines those receiving Development
Services and those receiving Financial Products/Financial Services and
is only requested for the Applicant's most recent historic fiscal year.
a. The CDFI Fund is proposing to request beneficiary data
separately for (1) Financial Products/Financial Services and (2)
Development Services to provide a more accurate depiction of
beneficiaries served. Is the proposal for separating out the
beneficiary data points between beneficiaries receiving Financial
Products/Financial Services versus those receiving Development Services
appropriate? If not, why not? Will this proposed change be difficult or
overly burdensome to report?
b. The CDFI Fund is considering to request beneficiary data
projections for the three year Period of Performance to help assess the
impact an Applicant's proposed activity with the FA award. Is the
proposal to collect projected beneficiary data appropriate for use in
assessing the impacts of an Applicant's proposed activity with the FA
award? If not, why not? Will this proposed data collection be difficult
or overly burdensome to report?
13. FA Objectives. Currently, FA Applicants can select from the
following list of seven FA Objectives (FAO): 1-1: Increase Volume of
Financial Products, 1-2: Increase Volume of Financial Services, 1-3:
New Geographic Area(s), 1-4: New Financial Product(s), 1-5: New
Financial Service(s), 1-6: New Development Service(s), and 1-7: New
Targeted Population(s). The CDFI Fund proposes to eliminate certain
FAOs that are difficult to measure, evaluate and administer. Further,
these FAOs are rarely selected by Applicants.
a. The CDFI Fund proposes to eliminate FAO 1-1: Increase Volume of
Financial Services from the list of FAOs to select in the FA
Application. However, Financial Services is still an eligible use of
the FA award. Would all types of regulated CDFIs still be interested in
applying if they could no longer select this FA Objective and required
to select another one instead? If no, why not?
b. The CDFI Fund proposes to eliminate FAO 1-5: New Financial
Services from the list of FAOs to select in the FA Application.
However, Financial Services is still an eligible use of the FA award.
Would all types of regulated CDFIs still be interested in applying if
they could no longer select this FA Objective and required to select
another one instead? If no, why not?
c. The CDFI Fund proposes to eliminate FAO 1-6: New Development
Services from the list of FAOs to select in the FA Application.
However, Development Services is still an eligible use of the FA award.
Would all types of CDFIs still be interested in applying if they could
no longer select this FA Objective and required to select another one
instead? If no, why not?
14. FA Objectives. Currently, to select FAO 1-1: Increase Volume of
Financial Products, an Applicant's three years of projected lending
activity must exceed its historic three years of lending activity plus
the FA award amount (``Increase in Volume''). The Increase in Volume
becomes a Performance Goal & Measure (PG&M) in the Assistance
Agreement. The CDFI Fund proposes to change the Increase in Volume
formula for FAO 1-1: Increase Volume of Financial Products to be more
consistent with other FAO PG&Ms and to more directly align with the
amount of the FA award. One option is for the formula to be a
multiplier of the award amount plus the Applicant's historic three
years of lending activity. For example, for a $1 million award, if the
multiplier were 2 and the Applicant's three most recent years of
historic of lending were $10 million, the FAO 1:1: Increase Volume of
Financial Products PG&M would be $12 million ($1 million FA award times
multiplier of 2 plus $10 million historic lending equals $12 million).
For more detailed explanation of the proposed formula, please see
Question 4d in the FA Application Template, found on the CDFI Fund's
website at https://www.cdfifund.gov/requests-for-comments. The CDFI
Fund is seeking input on the proposed change to FAO 1-1: Increase
Volume of Financial Products. Is a multiplier of the FA award plus
three years of historic lending an appropriate formula for FAO 1-1:
Increase Volume of Financial Products PG&M? If yes, should the CDFI
Fund require a standard multiplier or allow Applicants to propose their
own multiplier as part of the Application? If a standard multiplier,
what should the multiplier be? If a multiplier of the award plus three
years of historic lending is not appropriate, why is it not an
appropriate formula and what should the formula be?
15. Ability to Serve Native Communities. Should the CDFI Fund
adjust its FA Application in order to better collect information and
evaluate an Applicant's ability to serve the unique needs of Native
Communities? If yes, what questions should the CDFI Fund include in the
FA Application and what evaluation factors should the CDFI Fund
consider when evaluating an Applicant's ability to serve the unique
needs of Native Communities?
B. Technical Assistance (TA) Application
The following questions are related to the burden and information
requested in the TA Application, and responses may be used to make
modifications to the information being requested in the TA Application.
Commenters should clearly distinguish their comments related to this
section when providing their responses and ensure comments are clearly
labeled corresponding to each section and question number.
1. Is the information that is proposed to be collected by the
Application necessary and appropriate for the CDFI Fund to consider for
the purpose of making award decisions?
2. Are certain data fields, questions or tables redundant or
unnecessary? If yes, which ones and why?
3. Should any data fields, questions or tables be added to ensure
collection of relevant information?
[[Page 13513]]
4. Are there requests for data in the Application that Applicants
do not have readily available or that are burdensome to obtain and/or
calculate?
5. Are any of the questions particularly burdensome or difficult to
answer? If yes, which ones and why?
6. Are there questions that lack clarity as to intent or purpose?
If yes, which questions, and what needs to be clarified in order for
Applicants to provide a comprehensive response?
7. Are the character limitations for narrative responses
appropriate? Should certain questions allow additional or fewer
characters? If so, please specify.
8. What additional guidance can the CDFI Fund provide in order to
assist Applicants with completing a TA Application?
9. Evaluation Criteria by Application Type. Do the questions in the
TA Application allow the Applicant to clearly address the evaluation
criteria for the following Applicant types? If no, what additional
information should be included in the Application for each Applicant
type?
(a) An Emerging and Certifiable CDFI and its ability to achieve
certification;
(b) A Sponsoring Entity and its ability to create and receive
certification for a new CDFI; and
(c) A Certified CDFI and its ability to build its capacity to
expand operations, offer new products or services, or increase the
volume of current business?
10. Capacity to Serve Target Market(s). The primary purpose of
making a TA award to a Certified CDFI is to increase its capacity to
serve its Target Market(s). How can the CDFI Program and NACA Program
update the TA Application in order to make a more accurate
determination as to whether or not a TA award will increase a Certified
CDFI's capacity to serve its Target Market(s)?
11. Eligible Uses of Funds. Does the current TA Application,
related guidance materials, and NOFAs provide sufficient clarity to
help potential Applicants clearly understand what are, and are not,
eligible uses of TA funds?
12. Ability to Serve Native Communities. Should the CDFI Fund
adjust its TA Application in order to better collect information and
evaluate an Applicant's ability to serve the unique needs of Native
Communities? If yes, what questions should the CDFI Fund include in the
TA Application and what evaluation factors should the CDFI Fund
consider when evaluating an Applicant's ability to serve the unique
needs of Native Communities?
13. Sponsoring Entities. The NACA Program allows organizations that
serve Native Communities, Sponsoring Entities, to apply for TA awards
in order to create a new legal entity that will become a Certified
CDFI. In recent history, Sponsoring Entities have largely struggled to
find success in establishing a Certified CDFI. Between 2013 and 2020,
only two Sponsoring Entities have created new legal entities that
ultimately achieved CDFI Certification.
a. What questions should the Application include in order to better
assess a Sponsoring Entity's ability to successfully create an emerging
CDFI within one year and ensure that the emerging CDFI achieves CDFI
Certification within four years?
b. Should the CDFI Fund require Sponsoring Entities to create the
new legal entity that will become the Certified CDFI before being
eligible to receive a NACA TA award?
C. Healthy Food Financing Initiative--Financial Assistance (HFFI-FA)
Application
The following questions are related to the burden and information
requested in the HFFI-FA Application, and responses may be used to make
modifications to the information being requested in the HFFI-FA
Application. Commenters should clearly distinguish their comments
related to this section when providing their responses and ensure
comments are clearly labeled corresponding to each section and question
number.
1. Is the information being collected sufficient to determine
whether an Applicant (1) is financing eligible Healthy Foods
transactions and (2) can deploy an HFFI-FA award? If no, what other
information should the CDFI Fund collect in order to determine whether
an Applicant is financing eligible Healthy Foods transactions and can
deploy an HFFI-FA award?
D. Persistent Poverty Counties--Financial Assistance (PPC-FA)
Application
The following questions are related to the burden and information
requested in the PPC-FA Application, and responses may be used to make
modifications to the information being requested in the PPC-FA
Application Commenters should clearly distinguish their comments
related to this section when providing their responses and ensure
comments are clearly labeled corresponding to each section and question
number.
1. Is the information collected sufficient to determine whether an
Applicant (1) is providing eligible financing in Persistent Poverty
Counties and (2) can deploy a PPC-FA award? What other information
should the CDFI Fund consider in order to determine whether an
Applicant is providing financing in Persistent Poverty Counties and can
deploy a PPC-FA award?
E. Disability Funds--Financial Assistance (DF-FA) Application
The following questions are related to the burden and information
requested in the DF-FA Application, and responses may be used to make
modifications to the information being requested in the DF-FA
Application. Commenters should clearly distinguish their comments
related to this section when providing their responses and ensure
comments are clearly labeled corresponding to each section and question
number.
1. Is the information collected sufficient to determine whether an
Applicant (1) is financing eligible DF-FA transactions and (2) can
deploy a DF-FA award? What other information should the CDFI Fund
consider in order to determine whether an Applicant is financing
eligible DF-FA transactions and can deploy a DF-FA award?
F. Other CDFI Program and NACA Program-Related Topics and
Considerations
The following questions are related to CDFI Program and NACA
Program policy topics and will not impact the burden or information
requested in the Applications. Responses to these questions may inform
future areas of focus for program design and information requested in
future Applications. Commentators should clearly distinguish their
comments related to this section when providing their responses.
1. Measuring Economic Distress. The CDFI Fund is considering
developing place-based indicators to measure economic distress in the
communities where CDFIs invest their dollars at the census tract level.
a. Are the following indicators appropriate to measure track record
of serving economically distressed communities/populations? What, if
any, other metrics should be used to measure the level of economic
distress of communities/populations served?
i. Median Family Income (MFI): Calculated by dividing MFI of the
census tract by the appropriate benchmark (Metropolitan Statistical
Area MFI, state MFI, national metro MFI, or national non-metro MFI).
For example, if MFI share is 136.9%, it means the census tract has an
MFI that is 36.9% larger than the corresponding geographic benchmark.
The benchmark used to calculate the MFI share of a tract is dependent
on whether the census
[[Page 13514]]
tract is within a metro or non-metro area. Within a metropolitan area,
the Metropolitan Statistical Area MFI or the national metropolitan area
MFI, whichever is greater is used. Outside of a metropolitan area, the
statewide non-metropolitan area MFI or the national non-metropolitan
area MFI, whichever is greater is used.
ii. Unemployment Rate: Represents the number of unemployed people
living in the census tract as a percentage of the labor force (the sum
of the employed and unemployed).
iii. Poverty Rates: The ratio of the number of people living in the
census tract whose income falls below the poverty line (minimum level
of income deemed adequate in a particular area) as a percent of the
population.
iv. Historical Poverty: An average of the poverty rates of people
living in the census tract in the most current and previous two
decennial censuses for the census tract.
v. Percentage of Other Targeted Populations residing in the
underlying census tracts: Represents the number of OTPs living in the
census tract as a percentage of the population.
b. For CDFIs with Low Income Target Population or Other Targeted
Population Target Markets (versus geographically based Target Markets),
are the indicators listed above in Question 1. appropriate to measure
the track record of serving economically distressed communities/
populations? What, if any, other metrics should be used to measure the
level of economic distress of communities/populations served?
2. Deep Impact Lending. In addition to assessing an Applicant's
track record serving economically distressed communities/populations
and creating economic opportunities, the CDFI Fund is interested in
incorporating an Applicant's commitment to ``deep impact'' lending/
investment in its projected activity as part of the evaluation and/or
compliance process. ``Deep impact'' lending/investment is financing
activities that reach the hardest to serve borrowers and most
underserved communities/populations.
a. Please provide input on the proposed definitions/metrics to
qualify as ``deep impact'' lending, as defined by the U.S. Department
of Treasury's Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) Rate
Reduction Incentive Guidelines. Are the following definitions
appropriate to measure ``deep impact'' lending/investment for CDFIs? If
not, why not? What, if any, other definitions/metrics should be used to
qualify as ``deep impact'' lending/investment?
i. Lending/investment to Low-Income Borrowers. Low-Income means
equal to or less than 80% of the area median income.
ii. Mortgage Lending to Other Targeted Populations.
iii. Lending/investment in Persistent Poverty Counties (PPC): PPC
includes any county, including county equivalent areas in Puerto Rico,
that has had 20% or more of its population living in poverty over the
past 30 years, as measured by the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and
the 2011-2015 5-year data series available from the American Community
Survey of the Bureau of the Census or any other territory or possession
of the United States that has had 20% or more of its population living
in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured by the 1990, 2000 and
2010 Island Areas Decennial Censuses, or equivalent data, of the Bureau
of the Census.
iv. Lending/investments in Indian Reservations and Native Hawaiian
Homelands.
v. Lending/investments in U.S. Territories: U.S. Territories
include American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
vi. Lending/investments to Underserved Small Businesses: A loan/
investment made to a business with revenues that do not exceed $100,000
or that is majority owned by individual(s) that are low income and/or
from Other Targeted Populations.
vii. Deeply Affordable Housing Financing: Financing for any (1)
affordable housing units restricted to households earning below 30% of
AMI for a period not less than 10 years, prorated based on the
percentage that such units make up the total number of housing units;
or (2) affordable housing development project in a ``high opportunity
area'' as defined by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
viii. Public Welfare and Community Development Investments: Public
Welfare Investments pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24(eleventh) or 12 U.S.C.
338a if they primarily benefit Low-Income or Minority individuals or
businesses.
b. The CDFI Fund is contemplating adding a CDFI's commitment to
engage in ``deep impact'' lending going forward as part of the
evaluation process and/or compliance process. As such, the CDFI Fund is
considering adding a new PG&M based on an Applicant's projected
activity for ``deep impact'' lending and investment. The new PG&M would
be an additional performance goal and would not replace existing PG&Ms.
Is it appropriate to consider ``deep impact'' lending/investment as
part of the evaluation process? How should such a PG&M be structured--
as a percentage of overall projected activity, a percentage of the FA
award amount, a dollar volume commitment to deep impact lending/
investment, or something else (please describe)?
3. Net Asset Ratio. The CDFI Fund is interested in prioritizing FA
awards to CDFIs that are most effectively leveraging their balance
sheet and the resources they already have available to them, and for
which an FA award is the most essential for the CDFI's growth and
ability to leverage additional funds to serve communities in need. A
CDFI's Net Asset Ratio represents a CDFI's net assets compared to its
total assets and can be a measure of the overall capital structure of
an organization. Is a CDFI's Net Asset Ratio the appropriate measure to
assess if a CDFI is effectively utilizing its balance to leverage
resources? If yes, what should the target Net Asset Ratio be? If not,
what is the appropriate measure(s) and target benchmark(s)?
4. Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance. CDFIs may qualify as Small
and Emerging CDFI Assistance (SECA) Applicants if their asset size does
not exceed a pre-determined maximum amount based on financial
institution type OR if they have conducted financing activities for
four years or less prior to the opening of the funding round. Certified
CDFIs that exceed the pre-determined maximum asset size thresholds and
have more than four years of financing activity are considered as Core
Applicants. Currently, SECA Applicants have different Application
requirements and evaluation parameters than Core Applicants because of
their small and/or emerging status. Mainly, Matching Funds requirements
are typically waived for SECA Applicants. Also, a higher percentage of
the SECA Applicant pool progresses from Step 3 to Step 4 of the award
evaluation process (the top 70% of SECA Applicants versus top 60% of
Core Applicants).
a. The CDFI Fund is seeking input on whether there should there be
a maximum number of three FA awards a CDFI can receive as a SECA
Applicant. In other words, should CDFIs be required to apply as Core
Applicants after they receive a maximum number of three FA awards under
the SECA designation, regardless of asset size or financial activity
start date of the CDFI? If not three, what should that maximum number
of SECA awards be? If there should be no limit on the number of FA
awards that a CDFI can receive as a SECA Applicant, why not?
[[Page 13515]]
b. As noted above, organizations may qualify for SECA if they
started financing activities no more than four years prior to the
opening of the funding round, regardless of asset size. Is the start
date for financing activity to qualify for SECA appropriate? If not,
what should it be? What, if any, other changes would you make to the
financing activity start date component of the SECA definition?
5. Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance. As noted above,
organizations may qualify as SECA Applicants if their asset size does
not exceed a pre-determined maximum amount based on financial
institution type, regardless of financial activity start date. SECA
asset size thresholds have not been uniformly assessed and updated
across all financial institutions types. The CDFI Fund is seeking input
on the SECA maximum total asset size thresholds as follows:
a. Banks: Updating the threshold from $250 million to $346 million
for banks/bank holding companies, which corresponds to the FY 2022
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) asset size threshold for small banks
set by the Federal bank regulatory agencies. This practice is
consistent with the CDFI Fund's Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program,
which uses asset size classes that correspond to CRA asset size
thresholds in determining the cut off for small institutions. Should
the threshold be updated? If yes, is $346 million the appropriate
threshold? If not, what is the appropriate threshold and why? Should
the threshold be updated regularly to correspond with updates to the
CRA asset size threshold for small institutions?
b. Credit Unions: Retaining the current threshold of $100 million
for credit unions, which aligns with the current National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) definition for small institutions. Should this
threshold be retained? If it should not be retained, what is the
appropriate threshold and why? Should the threshold be updated
regularly to correspond with updates to NCUA's definition for small
institutions?
c. Unregulated Institutions: The SECA asset size threshold for
unregulated institutions is $5 million and has not been updated since
2006. The CDFI Fund is considering updating the SECA asset threshold
for unregulated institutions. One option is to adjust the current $5
million threshold for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), the same index used by
the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Depository Institution
Corporation (FDIC) in adjusting its threshold amounts for small banks.
Using the CPI-W to adjust the $5 million threshold in 2006 dollars
would represent approximately $7.5 million in 2022 dollars. Should the
threshold be updated? If yes, is $7.5 million the appropriate
threshold? If $7.5 million is not the appropriate threshold, what is
the appropriate threshold and why? If the threshold should not change,
why should it remain $5 million? Should the threshold be updated
regularly? If not, why not? If yes, is the CPI-W the appropriate
inflation factor to use? If not, what source should be used as the
benchmark for the updates?
6. Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance. Per the FY 2022 NOFA, the
maximum FA award request for SECA Applicants is currently $700,000
whereas the maximum FA award request for Core Applicants is $1 million.
Currently an FA Applicant that meets SECA requirements (called ``SECA
qualified Applicant'') may choose to apply as a Core Applicant if the
Applicant wants to request more than the $700,000 SECA maximum award
request (up to the $1 million maximum award request for Core
Applicants). SECA qualified Applicants that apply as Core are treated
as Core Applicants, and are held to the Application requirements and
evaluation parameters of a Core Applicant. The CDFI Fund is considering
removing the option for SECA qualified Applicants to apply as Core
Applicants, therefore only allowing SECA qualified Applicants to apply
under the SECA Application (which would mean all SECA qualified
Applicants would be limited to the lower maximum award request).
a. What feedback do CDFIs have on removing the option for SECA
qualified organizations to apply as Core Applicant?
b. Are there ways the CDFI Fund can implement this change to
minimize impacts to the affected Applicants?
7. Funding Levels for CDFIs. The CDFI Fund is prohibited by statute
from obligating more than $5 million in CDFI and NACA Program awards,
in the aggregate, to any one organization and its Subsidiaries and
Affiliates during any three-year period. Should the $5 million funding
cap be reduced? If yes, what should the funding cap be?
8. Funding Levels for CDFIs. Should larger CDFIs be limited on the
total dollar amount or number of FA awards they receive within a
certain timeframe? If yes, what should be the minimum asset size to be
classified as a larger CDFI for each type of unregulated institution,
bank/bank holding company, and credit union? For the purposes of this
Request for Public Comment, the CDFI Fund proposes the following asset
sizes for ``larger CDFIs'':
Banks with assets of more than $1.5 billion
Credit Unions with assets of more than $1 billion
Unregulated institutions with assets of more than $25 million
9. Funding Levels for CDFIs. Please fill in the blanks for each for
each institution type of unregulated institution, bank/bank holding
company, and credit union: ``CDFIs with asset size over $__ can receive
a maximum of $__ in CDFI and NACA Program FA awards every __ years.''
10. Continued Viability for CDFIs. The Riegle Act requires that
Applicants for FA provide a comprehensive strategic plan for the
organization that contains a business plan of not less than five years
in duration. The plan should demonstrate that the Applicant will be
properly managed and will have the capacity to operate as a CDFI that
will not be dependent upon assistance from the CDFI Fund for continued
viability.
a. To what extent are CDFIs reliant on FA funding from the CDFI
Fund for their continued viability?
b. What do CDFIs need in order to be independent from the CDFI
Fund's assistance for continued viability? Would a program model in
which CDFIs receive significantly larger award sizes for a three- to
five-year period support viability independent from the CDFI Fund? If
not, what would support a CDFI's growth towards such independence?
11. Sponsoring Entities. As noted earlier, the NACA Program allows
organizations that primarily serve Native Communities, Sponsoring
Entities, to apply for TA awards in order to create a new legal entity
that will become a Certified CDFI. In recent history, Sponsoring
Entities have largely struggled to find success in establishing a
Certified CDFI. Between 2013 and 2020, only two Sponsoring Entities
have created new legal entities that ultimately achieved CDFI
Certification. Should the CDFI Fund consider eliminating the Sponsoring
Entity model and focus resources on building the capacity of emerging
Native CDFIs in other ways? If yes, please specify other ways in which
the CDFI Fund can support the creation of new Native CDFIs. If no,
please specify why this model is needed and what enhancements would be
beneficial to increasing the success of Sponsoring Entities creating a
legal entity that achieves CDFI Certification.
[[Page 13516]]
(Authority: Pub. L. 103-325; 12 U.S.C. 4703, 4703 note, 4710, 4717;
31 U.S.C. 321; 12 CFR part 1805)
Jodie L. Harris,
Director, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
[FR Doc. 2023-04348 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-05-P