Final IRPS 13-1 80FR36356 24JUN2015

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

36356

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices

by target groups to the ETA. An
employer uses Form ETA–9061 or ETA–
9062 together with Form IRS–8850 to
request certification for new hires. A
SWA uses information from the two
forms to verify target group eligibility
and process the employer’s requests. A
SWA uses Form ETA–9063 to issue a
final certification to an eligible
employer or its representative and ETA
Form 9065 in an internal quarterly
administrative audit.
This information collection is subject
to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is
generally not required to respond to an
information collection, unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall generally be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that does not
display a valid Control Number. See 5
CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL
obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under Control
Number 1205–0371.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot
be for more than three (3) years without
renewal, and the current approval for
this collection is scheduled to expire on
June 30, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend
PRA authorization for this information
collection for three (3) more years,
without any change to existing
requirements. The DOL notes that
existing information collection
requirements submitted to the OMB
receive a month-to-month extension
while they undergo review. For
additional substantive information
about this ICR, see the related notice
published in the Federal Register on
March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11231).
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the OMB, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section by July 30, 2015. In order to help
ensure appropriate consideration,
comments should mention OMB Control
Number 1205–0371. The OMB is
particularly interested in comments
that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: DOL–ETA.
Title of Collection: Work Opportunity
Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax
Credit.
OMB Control Number: 1205–0371.
Affected Public: Individuals or
Households; State, Local, and Tribal
Governments; and Private Sector—
businesses or other for profits, farms,
and not-for-profit institutions.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 990,052.
Total Estimated Number of
Responses: 2,420,624.
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden:
847,445 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $0.
Dated: June 17, 2015.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–15469 Filed 6–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
RIN 3133–AE16

Minority Depository Institution
Preservation Program
National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Final Interpretive Ruling and
Policy Statement 13–1.
AGENCY:

The NCUA Board is issuing a
final Interpretive Ruling and Policy
Statement to establish a Minority
Depository Institution Preservation
Program for federally insured credit
unions.

SUMMARY:

This final Interpretive Ruling
and Policy Statement is effective July
24, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wendy A. Angus, Acting Director,
Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, at (703) 518–1650; or Cynthia
Vaughn, Diversity Outreach Program
Analyst, Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion, at (703) 518–1650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

I. Background
In 1989, Congress enacted the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery
and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) 1 in
response to the failure of the Federal
Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
(FSLIC), which insured the deposits of
insolvent savings & loan institutions.
Section 308 of FIRREA established goals
for preserving and promoting minority
depository institutions.2 When enacted,
FIRREA § 308 applied only to the Office
of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
successor to FSLIC.3 Those agencies
developed various initiatives, such as
training, technical assistance and
educational programs, aimed at
preserving federally insured banks and
savings institutions that meet FIRREA’s
definition of a minority depository
institution (MDI).4
In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act).5
Section 367(4)(A) of the Dodd Frank Act
amended FIRREA § 308 to require the
National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC) and the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Fed) to take steps to preserve
existing MDIs and encourage the
establishment of new ones.6 In addition,
Dodd Frank Act § 367(4)(B) requires
these agencies, along with FDIC, to each
submit an annual report to Congress
describing actions it has taken to carry
out FIRREA § 308.7
In 2013, the NCUA Board proposed an
Interpretive Ruling and Policy
Statement 13–1 (proposed IRPS) to
establish a Minority Depository
Institution Preservation Program
(Program) to encourage the preservation
of MDIs.8 As proposed, the MDI
program would be administered by
NCUA’s Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion (OMWI) and would consist of
outreach efforts, various forms of
technical assistance and educational
opportunities to benefit eligible credit
unions.
1 Public

Law 101–73, 103 Stat. 183 (Aug. 9, 1989).
Title III, § 308, 103 Stat. 353 note re
‘‘Preserving Minority Ownership of Minority
Financial Institutions,’’ 12 U.S.C. 1463 note.
3 Id. § 1463 note (a). OCC and the Fed also
initiated MDI programs to comply with the spirit of
FIRREA § 308, even though neither was originally
required to do so. OTS became part of OCC on July
21, 2011. OCC now administers the OTS MDI
Program.
4 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b).
5 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21,
2010); 12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.
6 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (a).
7 Id. § 1463 note (c).
8 78 FR 46374 (July 31, 2013).
2 Id.

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

24JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices
NCUA received a total of nine
comments on the proposed IRPS—eight
from credit union trade associations and
one from a community advocacy group.
Seven commenters expressly supported
the proposal; none opposed it.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

II. Summary of Comments on Proposed
IRPS
1. ‘‘Minority Depository Institution’’
Definition
Three commenters recommended
defining MDIs by minority
representation solely among current or
potential members, without considering
minority representation among credit
union management officials. Two
commenters believe extending the
definition beyond minority
representation among the membership
would exceed the statutory mandate,
and questioned whether including
management officials within the scope
of minority representation is necessary
or would undermine the Program’s
goals. Another commenter opposed
extending the minority representation
requirement to management officials,
contending that, if it were to encompass
credit union staff, it would be
burdensome for nearly one-half of the
nation’s federally insured credit unions
that operate with five or fewer
employees. This commenter also
opposed requiring minority
representation among members of the
board of directors, supervisory and
credit committee members because they
are volunteers elected from and by the
membership, and who should have the
education, experience, and knowledge
to manage a credit union regardless of
minority status.
In contrast, a commenter applauded
NCUA for measuring minority
representation among these officials to
ensure that credit union leadership
reflects the diversity of the communities
and members an MDI serves. In
addition, the same commenter wanted
to limit the MDI definition to current
members only, contending that having
potential members who reside in an area
having a mostly minority population is
no assurance that an MDI would
actually serve and invest in consumers
of color within that community. Finally,
the commenter suggested that minority
representation should also encompass
persons that identify as multi-racial/
multi-ethnic, estimated at 9 million
Americans by the U.S. Census Bureau.
In the final Interpretive Ruling and
Policy Statement 13–1 (final IRPS), the
NCUA Board retains the proposed MDI
definition with three significant
modifications to ensure complete
conformity with the statutory MDI

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

definition of a mutual institution. Under
that definition, a credit union qualifies
as an MDI when ‘‘the majority of the
Board of Directors, account holders, and
the community which it services is
predominantly minority.’’ 9 (Hereinafter,
when minority representation is
required to be ‘‘predominant’’ or to
consist of a ‘‘majority,’’ i.e., greater than
50 percent in either case, it will be
referred to as ‘‘>50%’’).
First, the proposed MDI definition
combined both current and ‘‘eligible
potential’’ credit union members to
assess minority representation among a
credit union’s ‘‘account holders.’’
Recognizing that a potential member
does not hold a credit union account
nor enjoy the rights and benefits of
membership, the final IRPS limits to
current members the assessment of
>50% minority representation among
credit union ‘‘account holders.’’
Second, as several commenters
contended, the proposed MDI definition
assessed minority representation not
only among a credit union’s board of
directors (BOD) as required, but more
generally among its ‘‘current
management officials,’’ consisting of
members of the supervisory and credit
committees and of the senior executive
staff.10 Despite the NCUA Board’s wish
to emphasize the importance of
minority representation within the
leadership ranks of MDIs, the final IRPS
limits to the BOD exclusively the
assessment of >50% minority
representation, consistent with the letter
of the applicable statutory definition.
Third, the final IRPS clarifies that the
MDI criterion requiring the community
of a would-be MDI to be
‘‘predominantly minority’’ is not an
alternative criterion for credit unions
unable to meet the MDI criteria
requiring >50% minority representation
within its membership and on its BOD;
it is an additional MDI criterion in and
of itself.11 To assess whether the
community of a would-be MDI is
‘‘predominantly minority,’’ the final
9 12

U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(1)(C).
Chief executive officer, assistant chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and branch
managers. 78 FR 46374, 46375 (July 31, 2013)
11 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(1)(C). In contrast to
NCUA, the fact that FDIC oversees publicly-owned,
privately-owned and mutual institutions may
account for its policy permitting an institution that
is unable to meet the 51 percent minority
ownership criterion to instead rely on two of the
mutual MDI >50% criteria, yielding a hybrid
definition: ‘‘In addition to the institutions that meet
the [51 percent] ownership test, for purposes of this
Policy Statement, institutions will be considered
[MDIs] if a majority of the [BOD] is minority and
the community that the institution serves is
predominantly minority.’’ 67 FR 18 618, 18620
(April 16, 2002). See also 67 FR 77, 79 (January 2,
2002).
10 E.g.,

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

36357

IRPS designates a credit union’s
community according to its charter. To
make this assessment, the final IRPS
also permits credit unions to rely on the
same methods and supporting data the
proposed IRPS prescribed for use by
credit unions to self-certify as an MDI
(e.g., U.S. Census and Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act data).12
In addition to the above
modifications, the MDI definition in the
final IRPS counts a person of multiple
ethnicities who falls into at least one of
the four minority categories designated
by law,13 (or is multi-racial as defined
in Table 1) as a single minority
individual for purposes of minority
representation.
2. Documentation To Support MDI
Designation
In order to receive the MDI
designation, one commenter advocated
requiring the majority of a credit union’s
members’ deposits and/or loan products
to be held by racial minorities. While
striving to maximize flexibility and the
options to determine and support an
MDI designation, the NCUA Board is
concerned that it would be too
burdensome and restrictive to identify
the race and/or ethnicity of all members
with deposits and/or loan products. The
final IRPS therefore does not adopt this
suggestion as an MDI criterion.
One commenter recommended that
NCUA clarify which U.S. Census
demographic data to rely upon to
measure minority representation among
members for purposes of MDI
determination. The final IRPS clarifies
that U.S. Census data includes the
American Fact Finder’s most recent
census population data (e.g., 2010) for a
particular geographic area, such as
within members’ zip codes or census
tracts; and that minority composition 14
by census tracts, according to U.S.
Census population data, can be found
on the U.S. Census Bureau and the
Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council (FFIEC) Web sites.
One commenter suggested providing a
portal on NCUA’s Web site for credit
unions to access the sources of data
relevant to self-certifying as an MDI,
12 78 FR at 46376 and n. 14. In many cases the
methods and data that establish >50% minority
representation among a credit union’s membership
also will establish >50% minority representation
within the community it services. The Board
acknowledges this redundancy as necessary to
conform this third criterion to the letter of the
statutory MDI definition.
13 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(2).
14 The minority composition represents the
percentage of minorities divided by the entire
referred population (e.g., total membership or
within a geographic area such as a census tract or
a Metropolitan Statistical Area).

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

24JNN1

36358

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

such as links to U.S. Census and Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data.
NCUA currently provides links to access
U.S. Census and FFIEC data on OMWI’s
Web page. To identify the ethnicity of
its mortgage applicants, a credit union
may rely on the home mortgage data it
submits to comply with HMDA.
One commenter opposed the notion of
collecting data by any method that relies
on members voluntarily identifying
themselves as a minority, for two
reasons. First, the practice may conflict
with anti-discrimination laws; and
second, maintaining the collected
ethnicity data may expose credit unions
to criticism that the practice is intrusive,
and to the risk of legal action. The final
IRPS permits collection of volunteered
ethnicity data as an option, but not a
requirement, for credit unions to
determine and to support selfcertification of MDI eligibility.
Organizations that already collect
volunteered ethnicity data from
customers and members must take care
to maintain the confidentiality of the
collected data. Credit unions that elect
this option to support self-certification
should maintain the collected data
separately from members’ personal
account files, and without personal
identifiers (e.g., name, account or social
security number, etc.).
One commenter disagreed with the
proposed requirement to annually
review and update credit unions’ MDI
status, suggesting that NCUA require
credit unions to follow a data review
schedule that is consistent with the data
each credit union relied upon to
document its MDI certification. For
example, when MDI eligibility is based
on U.S. Census population data, the
review and update would occur every
10 years. Due to frequent changes in a
credit union’s field of membership, and
the composition of its board of directors
due to annual elections, the final IRPS
retains an annual schedule for the
review and update of MDI selfcertifications.
3. MDI Program Costs, Resources &
Funding
Three commenters asked NCUA to
perform a cost/benefit analysis of the
new Program, detailing the new
resources or processes that will be
essential to realize NCUA’s commitment
to preserve MDIs, and how the Program
will be funded. Another commenter
sought further explanation of Program
mechanics, funding details, the number
of staff dedicated to Program
implementation, the geographic
distribution of Program beneficiaries,
and the frequency of OMWI staff
interaction with participating MDIs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

The NCUA Board anticipates no
additional costs or new resources
attributable to the Program, due to
reliance on existing agency programs
and resources offered through NCUA’s
Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives
(OSCUI), regional offices, and Office of
Consumer Protection (OCP), thus
avoiding overlaps with existing
supervision, chartering, training,
technical assistance, and educational
programs. About 92 percent of MDIs
already are eligible for OSCUI services
that assist and educate credit unions
designated either as low-income or as
small. Examiners provide additional
guidance to MDIs in between
examinations to assist them in resolving
substantial examination or viability
concerns. OCP provides guidance to
assist and educate MDIs and interested
minority groups in chartering and in
field of membership expansions. One
OMWI staff member is responsible for
managing the Program. OMWI’s initial
interaction and communications with
MDIs will include OMWI’s participation
at events attended by MDIs, and
OMWI’s assistance provided upon
request from MDIs.
4. MDI Program Benefits
One commenter favored an expansion
of financial support to enable the
Program to provide direct financial
support to MDIs. Financial support to
eligible MDIs will be offered through the
existing grant and loan programs funded
by NCUA’s Community Development
Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF).
Two commenters encouraged NCUA
to provide technical assistance to MDIs
to avoid insolvency. One suggested two
ways to strengthen the net worth of
MDIs in response to unusual losses
related to economic conditions outside
the credit union’s control: (1) Develop
criteria and goals for access to assistance
under section 208 of the Federal Credit
Union Act (§ 208 assistance); 15 and (2)
make CDRLF funding a source of
secondary capital for low-income
designated credit unions, especially
MDIs.
The NCUA Board emphasizes that the
agency’s role in preserving MDIs and
providing technical support not only is
to help MDIs survive, but to help them
thrive as ongoing concerns. Section 208
assistance is available to all credit
unions under at least one of three
conditions: (1) To assist in the voluntary
liquidation of a solvent credit union; (2)
to avert the liquidation of a credit union
that NCUA determines is in danger of
insolvency; or (3) when NCUA
15 12 U.S.C. 1788(a). See also 12 U.S.C.
1790d(o)(2)(B).

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

determines it is needed to reduce the
risk, or avert the threat, of a loss to the
National Credit Union Share Insurance
Fund.16
NCUA typically provides § 208
assistance to facilitate a sound merger or
consolidation of an insured credit union
in order to avert the liquidation of a
credit union. Other than to avert the
liquidation of a credit union that NCUA
determines on a case-by-case basis is in
danger of insolvency, regardless
whether it is an MDI, § 208 assistance is
not used solely to improve a credit
union’s capital position. The NCUA
Board reserves the use of § 208
assistance for credit unions under the
above three conditions. However, the
agency plans to enhance its guidance to
examiners to sensitize them about the
availability of § 208 assistance for MDIs,
as well as about the ‘‘General Preference
Guidelines’’ for mergers, addressed
below. In contrast, the purpose of
CDRLF grants and loans is to support
enhanced service to underserved
communities, including those served by
MDIs. Unlike § 208 assistance, CDRLF
grants and loans generally are not
provided solely for the purpose of
improving capital to avoid insolvency.
One commenter suggested making
technical assistance and educational
programs available on a variety of topics
critical to preserving MDIs, including
aid in achieving satisfactory levels of
operations and regulatory performance.
OSCUI currently provides technical
guidance and educational programs to
assist MDIs, as well as small credit
unions, in achieving these objectives
regardless of low-income designation
and asset size. These programs include
NCUA-sponsored videos, webinars,
consulting services, newsletters, and
other publications, including a Credit
Union Leadership Resource Manual.
One commenter advocated adopting a
plan that combines targeted resources
with supervisory authority in an effort
to resolve material safety and soundness
concerns among troubled MDIs. NCUA
has no plans to make MDI preservation
a part of the examination and/or
supervision processes, although
examiners are encouraged to provide
additional guidance to MDIs in
resolving material safety and soundness
concerns whenever feasible. Also,
OSCUI will continue to provide MDIs
with technical assistance and
educational and consulting services to
assist them in resolving these concerns,
thus improving their viability. OMWI
will aid MDIs by facilitating and
monitoring the assistance they receive,
will report to Congress annually on
16 12

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

U.S.C. 1788(a)(1)–(2).

24JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices
these efforts to preserve MDIs and to
create new MDIs, and will reevaluate
and enhance the Program as it matures.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5. MDI Program Partnerships
Two commenters suggested
collaborating with interested
stakeholders (e.g., trade associations) to
increase the likelihood of preserving
MDIs, as well as to participate with
NCUA’s OMWI as a resource partner.
One of the two commenters advocated
expanding the Program’s outreach to
include a webinar on the application
process for would-be MDIs, workshop
sessions at trade conferences, and a
comprehensive marketing program to
increase awareness. NCUA’s Office of
Consumer Protection (OCP) recently
published the Federal Credit Union
Charter Application Guide, which
provides detailed step-by-step
instructions for chartering a new federal
credit union. Additionally, NCUA is
building relationships and plans to
collaborate with credit union trade
associations, credit unions, and other
organizations to provide mentoring and
educational opportunities for MDIs,
including workshops and webinars.
Interested organizations and credit
unions should contact OMWI and
suggest ideas for possible partnerships.
One commenter encouraged NCUA’s
OMWI to collaborate with the original
FIRREA-designated agencies, and the
two agencies that joined them, to
implement their ideas and suggestions.
To develop and enhance NCUA’s
Program, OMWI continues to consult
with its counterparts at the FDIC, the
OCC and the Fed, to review their MDI
programs, and to attend their
interagency MDI and Community
Development Financial Institution
Banks’ Conferences. NCUA will
continue to work with its counterparts,
whenever feasible, to obtain additional
ideas to enhance its Program.
6. General Preference Guidelines for
MDI Mergers
One commenter supported the
FIRREA-prescribed ‘‘General Preference
Guidelines’’ for mergers (Guidelines),17
which give MDIs preference as a merger
partner, provided that other relevant
factors are given appropriate weight and
consideration (e.g., the acquiring MDI’s
capacity to offer the same and/or
improved financial services and access
to the acquired members).
To implement the Program, another
commenter encouraged NCUA to work
closely with state regulators to apply the
Guidelines seamlessly and fairly when
comparing potential MDI versus non17 12

U.S.C. 1463 note (a)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

MDI merger partners for a troubled
state-chartered credit union; to make the
Program respond expeditiously and
effectively to a troubled institution; and
to ensure that supervisory oversight
remains the focus of the Program—all
without delaying the resolution of a
troubled institution through merger or
acquisition.
Under the final IRPS, NCUA regional
offices will continue to process the
mergers of troubled MDIs, working
closely with state regulators to apply the
Guidelines, and to ensure that the
Guidelines do not conflict with safety
and soundness considerations. In
processing MDI mergers and purchaseand-assumption transactions, the need
to respond expeditiously and effectively
to troubled MDIs will continue to be the
primary focus of NCUA’s supervisory
oversight. The Guidelines provide
interested MDIs an opportunity to
participate in the merger bidding
process for an insolvent or troubled
MDI, enabling the minority character of
the MDI to be preserved.
7. Attention to Troubled MDIs
One commenter recommended
establishing a clear supervisory
framework and strategy to establish a
sufficient period of time to permit a
more aggressive workout strategy for
troubled MDIs. The commenter
contended that such a framework and
strategy would be an important
preservation step between the
identification of a troubled credit union
and its dissolution. The commenter
suggested addressing steps that may be
taken through NCUA’s supervisory
examinations and oversight; and
recommending an aggressive strategy for
intervention using supervisory
authorities combined with its targeted
workout teams and resources.
In addition, this commenter
advocated adopting a system of triage
for prioritizing attention to MDIs, based
on financial health, to best support
those that are financially sound in
building and expanding their work,
while intervening sooner with those on
a less secure footing in order to preserve
service to their communities.
Furthermore, this commenter advocated
adopting a plan to provide resources
and support to struggling MDIs
identified as in danger of failing either
through agency enforcement action or
an inability to address issues identified
in a Document of Resolution (DOR) and/
or Letter of Understanding and
Agreement (LUA). The period between
a DOR and an LUA may present a
critical moment where additional help
and support can be sought. This
commenter suggested steps NCUA could

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

36359

implement to work an MDI out of
distress or troubled status. The
commenter suggested using NCUA’s
Vendor Registration process to identify
an appropriate resource team to
participate in workout situations and to
put additional resources and technical
assistance at its disposal in working to
resolve sound operations in a troubled
MDI. The commenter envisioned the
resource team effecting a significant
turnaround in 6–12 months with the
intention of preserving and building the
institution. If the situation is not viable,
the commenter suggested the resource
team would be able to assist in
identifying appropriate merger partners
interested in serving the minority
community.
NCUA cannot adopt the commenter’s
suggestions regarding attention to
troubled MDIs because they would
involve internal agency processes
beyond the scope of this final IRPS. The
final IPRS is a policy statement that
generally prescribes actions to preserve
MDIs, such as technical assistance,
training, and educational opportunities
to strengthen management and/or
operations, as well as to assist in
resolving examination and compliance
concerns. The Program will not interfere
with supervisory enforcement actions
duly undertaken by the other offices
within the agency.
Also, due to confidentiality, NCUA
cannot disclose information about
troubled MDIs to resource teams
involving third parties (e.g., trade
associations or vendors). Credit union
examination results constitute
confidential information; public
disclosure is prohibited by law. NCUA
regulations specifically prohibit the
release of such information by officers,
employees or agents of NCUA or any
federally insured credit union.18 Such
disclosure risks harming the financial
stability of credit unions or interfering
in the relationship between NCUA and
credit unions.
The final IRPS addresses the posting
of a list of MDIs on the agency’s Web
site (www.ncua.gov) and the use of a
Vendor Registration Form to provide an
opportunity for qualified minorities or
minority-owned firms to apply for the
position of interim manager of an MDI
placed in conservatorship. Other uses of
the form may be considered. With the
posting of an MDI list on the agency
Web site, interested parties (e.g., trade
associations or vendors) may monitor
the financial trends of all MDIs to
identify troubled MDIs and offer a
program to restore them to financial
soundness.
18 12

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

CFR 792.11(a)(8),

24JNN1

36360

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices

8. Commenters’ Other Suggestions
Rather than holding to a static number
of MDIs to measure preservation, one
commenter advocated chartering new
MDIs in communities that would benefit
from MDI service. NCUA’s goals are to
implement efforts not only to preserve
existing MDIs, but to encourage the
chartering of new MDIs, as FIRREA
§ 308(a) (1)–(5) prescribes.19 NCUA’s
OCP and OSCUI will continue to work
with groups seeking to charter new
MDIs and with MDIs seeking a common
bond conversion or a charter expansion,
and they will assist them in the
application process.
One commenter advocated
publicizing information to credit
unions, leagues and state agencies about
NCUA’s efforts to preserve MDIs and
about the Program’s benefits.
Information pertaining to MDI
preservation efforts is provided in
NCUA’s annual reports to Congress.20
NCUA’s MDI Reports to Congress for
2013 and 2014 are available on OMWI’s
Web page.21
Another commenter suggested
limiting the regulatory burden on credit
unions as a step in support of the
survival of MDIs. The NCUA Board
agrees with this recommendation, and is
aggressively working toward this goal.
In January 2013, the NCUA Board
reviewed the threshold it uses to
identify which credit unions qualify as
small entities and thus receive special
consideration regarding regulatory
burden and alternatives under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’).22
Based on industry percentages carried
forward from the last update in 2003,
and corresponding risks to the Share
Insurance Fund, the NCUA Board
determined that credit unions with less
than $50 million in assets, up from the
prior $10 million threshold, were small
and non-complex for purposes of the
RFA.23 These credit unions receive
exemptions from certain NCUA rules,
and heightened consideration of
regulatory burden. Approximately 82
percent of the 655 self-identified MDIs
under the proposed definition had
assets of less than $50 million as of
March 31, 2015. In February of 2015, the
NCUA Board proposed increasing the
19 12

U.S.C. 1463 note (a)(1)–(5).
§ 1463 note (c).
21 Available at: http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/
RptsPlans/Pages/OMWI.aspx.
22 5 U.S.C. 601.
23 78 FR 4032 (January 18, 2013).

asset threshold to define small credit
unions under the RFA to $100 million.24
The proposed rule is intended to
provide regulatory relief for a greater
percentage of credit unions (including
MDIs) in future rulemakings.
Approximately 89 percent of the 655
self-identified MDIs under the proposed
definition had assets of less than $100
million as of March 31, 2015.
One commenter proposed that NCUA
establish an advisory committee to
assist in developing, designing, and
testing strategies and approaches on
how to best preserve MDIs. Rather than
rely on a permanent advisory
committee, NCUA may consider
informal focus groups comprised of
MDIs of all asset sizes and levels of
complexity to accomplish the suggested
goals.
Revised as explained above, the final
IRPS follows.
III. Final Interpretive Ruling and Policy
Statement 13–1 (Final IRPS)
1. Why is the NCUA Board issuing this
final IRPS?
The NCUA Board is issuing this final
IRPS to establish a Minority Depository
Institution Preservation Program
(Program) to achieve the goals of
preserving and encouraging Minority
Depository Institutions (MDIs), as
section 308 of the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act
(FIRREA § 308) directs.25 Recognizing
the important role of MDIs in minority
communities, the NCUA Board
envisions a program of proactive steps
and outreach efforts to promote and
preserve minority ownership in the
credit union system. To achieve these
goals, the final IRPS prescribes the
Program eligibility criteria and Program
elements.
2. What are the goals and objectives of
the MDI Program?
The Program embraces goals and
objectives that relate to NCUA’s mission
and goal to ensure a safe, sound, and
sustainable credit union system as
envisioned in NCUA’s current strategic
plan.
The Program also reflects the
preservation goals of FIRREA § 308,26
namely:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

20 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

24 80

FR 11954 (March 15, 2015).
Law 101–73, 103 Stat. 183 (Aug. 9,

25 Public

1989).
26 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (a) & (c).

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

• To preserve the present number of
MDIs;
• To preserve the minority character
of MDIs that are involuntarily merged,
or are acquired, by following the
prescribed ‘‘general preference
guidelines’’ to identify a merger or
acquisition partner; 27
• To provide technical assistance to
prevent insolvency of MDIs that are not
now insolvent;
• To promote and encourage the
creation of new MDIs; and
• To provide for training, technical
assistance, and educational programs.
3. Who is eligible to participate in the
MDI Program?
A credit union that meets the
definition of an MDI is eligible to
participate in the Program. The Program
adopts the MDI definition set forth in
FIRREA § 308 that applies to a mutual
institution.28 Accordingly, this final
IRPS defines an MDI as a federally
insured credit union in which a
majority of its current members, a
majority of its board of directors (BOD),
and a majority of the community it
services, as designated in its charter,
falls within any of the eligible minority
groups described below. (Hereinafter,
when minority representation is
required to be ‘‘predominant’’ or to
consist of a ‘‘majority,’’ i.e., greater than
50 percent in either case, it will be
referred to as ‘‘>50%’’.)
NCUA relies on FIRREA § 308’s
‘‘minority’’ definition to identify an
eligible minority exclusively as any
Black American, Asian American,
Hispanic American, or Native
American.29 Also, for the purpose of
minority representation under the MDI
definition, anyone of multiple
ethnicities who falls into more than one
of the minority categories depicted
below is a single minority individual.
27 In priority, the General Preference Guidelines
for identifying an involuntary merger/acquisition
partner are: (a) Same type of MDI in the same city;
(b) Same type of MDI in the same state; (c) Same
type of MDI nationwide; (d) Any type of MDI in the
same city; (e) Any type of MDI in the same state;
(f) Any type of MDI nationwide; and (g) Any other
bidders (for merger/acquisition partners). 12 U.S.C.
1463 note (a)(2). Rules concerning field of
membership, least cost to NCUSIF, and safety and
soundness still apply to all mergers. Regional office
staff will continue to process mergers and work
with management and state regulators. OMWI will
monitor MDI mergers and report about them to
Congress annually.
28 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(1)(C).
29 Id. § 1463 note (b)(2). Compare 12 U.S.C.
5452(g)(3) incorporating 12 U.S.C. 1811 note(c)(3).

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

24JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices

36361

TABLE 1—MINORITY CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
Minority category

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)

Black American ...........................

Black or African American (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person having origins in any of the black racial groups
of Africa.
American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Hispanic or Latino—A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish
culture or origin regardless of race.
Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam; or
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person having origins in any of the
peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
Two or More Races 30 (Not Hispanic or Latino)—A person who identifies with more than one of the above
races.

Native American ..........................
Hispanic American ......................
Asian American ...........................

Multi-Racial American .................

4. How will the MDI Program function?

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

NCUA’s Office of Minority and
Women Inclusion (OMWI) administers
the Program. A federally insured credit
union can self-certify as an MDI by
affirmatively answering the following
questions within NCUA’s Credit Union
Online Profile (CU Online System),
accessible from the NCUA Web site,31 or
when submitting a Call Report: (1) Are
more than 50 percent of your credit
union’s current and eligible potential
members Black American, Native
American, Hispanic American or Asian
American?; 32 and (2) Is more than 50
percent of your credit union’s current
board of directors Black American,
Native American, Hispanic American or
Asian American?
If both questions are answered ‘‘yes’’,
the credit union may self-certify via
NCUA’s Credit Union Online Profile
system that it meets the >50% minority
criteria, as the case may be. A credit
union defined as a small entity under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
may self-certify >50% representation
among its current members, and within
the community it services (current and
potential members combined), based
solely on knowledge of those members.
A credit union not defined as a small
entity under the RFA may rely on one
of the following methods, as applicable,
to determine the minority composition
30 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s EEO–1 Report-Race/Ethnicity
Categories.
31 www.ncua.gov.
32 The community serviced by a multiple
common bond credit union consists of both its
current members and the eligible non-members
within the select groups designated by its charter.
For example, the current members and eligible nonmembers may all reside in one city, county, or
MSA. The community serviced by a community
credit union consists of both its current members
and the eligible non-members who reside within
the well-defined local community designated by its
charter.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

of its current membership exclusively,
and of the community it services,
consisting of the combined current and
potential membership:
(A) Ascertain the minority
representation using demographic data
from the U.S. Census Bureau (using the
U.S. Census Bureau or FFIEC Web site)
based on the area(s) where the
combined current and potential
membership resides, such as a
township, borough, city, county, or
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). If
the U.S. Census data (e.g., census tracts,
zip codes, townships, boroughs, cities,
counties, etc.) shows that the area’s
population is comprised mostly of
eligible minorities, the credit union may
assume that its current membership and
the community it services both have the
same minority composition as the U.S.
Census data indicates.
(B) Use Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (HMDA) data to calculate the
reported number of minority mortgage
applicants divided by the total number
of mortgage applicants within the credit
union’s membership. HMDA data can be
obtained from the FFIEC Web site. If the
share of minority representation among
applicants is >50%, the minority
membership and the predominantly
community criteria may be met. If a
credit union grants a majority of its
mortgage loans to minorities, it is most
likely the majority of the community the
credit union services (its current and
potential members) will consist of
minorities.
(C) Elect to collect data from members
who voluntarily choose to self-identify
as an eligible minority and use the data
to determine minority representation
among the credit union’s membership.
The credit union may wish to consider
using an unbiased third party to
conduct such a collection process. For
example, data can be collected through
a survey of members assessing the

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

services they desire, or by mailed
electoral ballots for official positions.
Once collected, it is essential to
maintain the confidentiality of the data;
it should not be retained in the
members’ file or with any personal
identifiers (e.g., name, account or social
security numbers, etc.) If a majority of
its current members are minorities, it is
most likely the majority of the
community the credit union services (its
current and potential members) will
consist of minorities.
(D) Use any other reasonable form of
data, such as membership address list
analyses, or an employer’s demographic
analysis of employees.
A credit union defined as a small
entity under the RFA that self-identifies
as an MDI should maintain some form
of the documentation that it relied upon
to determine that, as explained above, it
meets the minimum minority
representation among its membership.
This documentation may consist of
demographic data obtained from the
U.S. Census Bureau,33 from a credit
union’s HMDA report, or from any other
reasonable source and form of data (e.g.,
member survey, sponsor’s employee
demographic or members’ zip code
analysis).
Regardless of asset size and the
method a credit union uses to selfcertify as an MDI, the validity of the
self-certification (and the supporting
data) is subject to verification by NCUA
based on minority representation where
the credit union’s members reside.
If NCUA questions a credit union’s
certification or the data supporting it
(e.g., members’ addresses) is found to be
at odds with a credit union’s selfcertification of >50% minority
representation among either its current
membership, the community it services
(consisting of current and potential
33 www.census.gov

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

24JNN1

or www.FFIEC.gov.

36362

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices

members) or its board of directors,
NCUA’s OWMI will:
(1) Notify the credit union in writing
about its reasons for invalidating the
certification.
(2) Provide the credit union an
opportunity to submit documentation
and/or a rationale to support its MDI
self-identification within 60 days of
receiving OMWI’s notification.
(3) Review the documentation and/or
rationale the credit union submits and
inform the credit union whether, as a
result, it meets the >50% minority
criterion.
(4) Deny the MDI designation if the
credit union either provides no
documentation and/or rationale, or
provides documentation and/or
rationale that, in NCUA’s discretion, is
insufficient to support a certification
based upon >50% minority
representation under all criteria.
NCUA will periodically review and
determine whether an MDI continues to
meet the MDI definition. A credit union
may no longer meet the MDI definition
as a result of FOM expansions (e.g.,
mergers, purchase and assumptions,
new groups added to the FOM, or
charter conversions) and changes
resulting from board of directors
elections. NCUA, at its discretion, may
continue to treat a credit union as an
MDI under this final IRPS in the event
its board of directors no longer meets
the minority criteria, provided there is
>50% minority representation among
both the credit union’s current members
and the community it serves.
Once it qualifies as an MDI, a credit
union should annually assess whether it
continues to meet the MDI definition
(e.g., December 31st Call Report cycle),
and update its status on NCUA’s Credit
Union Online Profile system as
necessary.
Participation in the MDI Program is
voluntary. An MDI may discontinue its
participation at any time by updating its
status on NCUA’s Credit Union Online
system. In that event, the credit union
would no longer be eligible to
participate in any MDI Program
initiatives (e.g., MDI merger/acquisition
preference consideration or MDI
partnerships).

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5. What are the elements of the MDI
Program?
NCUA seeks to provide MDI Program
participants a variety of initiatives to
assist in preserving the economic
viability of their institutions. The
initiatives include technical assistance
and educational opportunities for MDIs
through NCUA’s Office of Small Credit

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Jkt 235001

Union Initiatives (OSCUI).34 This
technical assistance may include
participation in:
(1) OSCUI’s Consulting Program;
(2) NCUA-sponsored training,
webinars, etc.; and
(3) Grant or loan programs of NCUA’s
Community Development Revolving
Loan Fund (CDRLF).
The technical assistance may also
include examiner guidance in resolving
examination concerns; in locating new
sponsors, mentors, or merger partners;
in expanding the field of membership;
and in setting up new programs and
services. Additionally, the NCUA Board
will consider providing Section 208
assistance to avert the liquidation of a
credit union that it determines on a
case-by-case basis is in danger of
insolvency, regardless whether the
credit union is an MDI.35
NCUA may aid in coordinating
partnerships between MDIs and other
organizations (e.g., other MDIs, and/or
trade associations) as a means of
providing technical or operational
assistance to MDIs. This assistance may
include training for officials and staff,
expertise in technical areas (e.g.,
marketing, FOM expansion guidance,
bidding on merger proposals),
equipment, and assistance for specific
projects or to achieve specific goals.
NCUA will publish a list of federally
insured MDIs on its Web site
(www.ncua.gov) to enable organizations
(e.g., banks, other MDIs, trade
associations or other third parties) to
identify MDIs that would benefit from
partnering, mentoring, additional
resources, and/or business
relationships. Banks can obtain
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
credit for investing in MDIs. For
example, if a bank were to have an
unused building, the bank could lease
that space to an MDI at no charge or at
a low cost, and receive a corresponding
CRA credit.
NCUA will monitor MDIs and will
report to Congress annually on the
number and overall financial condition
of MDIs, along with actions taken by the
agency to preserve and strengthen them
and to encourage the chartering of new
ones.
NCUA will use FIRREA’s prescribed
General Preference Guidelines (see
§ II.6. above) to attempt to preserve the
34 OSCUI’s services are generally offered to credit
unions that have less than $50 million in assets or
are low-income designated. By statute, grants and
loans from the CDRLF are available only to lowincome designated credit unions. The webinars and
training programs are open to all credit unions. The
MDI Program expands consulting services to all
MDIs.
35 12 U.S.C. 1788(a)(1)–(2).

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

minority character of failing MDIs that
are involuntarily merged or acquired. In
the event of an involuntary merger/
acquisition of a troubled MDI,36 NCUA
will invite bids from MDIs that are
qualified to partner with a failing MDI,
along with non-MDI credit unions.
OMWI also will assist in locating an
MDI partner for MDIs wishing to
voluntarily merge their operations. To
be considered as an acquirer, an MDI is
strongly encouraged to document its
desire to acquire another MDI by
registering itself on NCUA’s Merger
Registry via the CU Online System.
Additionally, any organization or
person seeking to be a candidate for
managing the conservatorship of an MDI
should complete an NCUA Vendor
Registration Form (NCUA 1772) 37 and
OSCUI’s Credit Union Service Provider
(CUSP) Database Registration Form.38
OMWI can provide NCUA regional
offices with a list of diverse candidates
who have requested consideration for
the position of interim Chief Executive
Officer/Manager of a conserved MDI,
upon request.
Finally, the Office of Consumer
Protection and OSCUI will be available
to provide assistance, and guidance in
the application process, to groups that
may be interested in chartering a new
MDI, and to MDIs wishing to apply to
change their charter or field of
membership. For detailed step-by-step
instructions on chartering a federal
credit union, please refer to the Federal
Credit Union Charter Application
Guide.39
IV. Regulatory Procedures
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to
describe any significant economic
impact the IRPS may have on a
substantial number of small entities.
36 A merger is involuntary whenever the credit
union is insolvent. 12 U.S.C. 1787(a) (1). A credit
union is insolvent when the total amount of the
credit union’s shares exceeds the present cash value
of its assets after providing for liabilities unless: (i)
It is determined by the NCUA Board that the facts
that caused the deficient share-asset ratio no longer
exist; and (ii) The likelihood of further depreciation
of the share asset ratio is not probable; and (iii) The
return of the share-asset ratio to its normal limits
within a reasonable time for the credit union
concerned is probable; and (iv) The probability of
a further potential loss to the insurance fund is
negligible. 12 CFR 700.2(e)(1)
37 The Vendor Registration Form can be accessed,
completed and submitted on NCUA’s Web site via
the following link: http://www.ncua.gov/about/
Documents/Procurement/VendorRegistration.pdf.
38 The CUSP Registration Form and Instructions
can be accessed on NCUA’s Web site at: http://
www.ncua.gov/Resources/OSCUI/Pages/
CUSP.aspx.
39 www.FCU-Charter-Application-Guide.

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

24JNN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Notices
The final IRPS permits a credit union
defined as small under the RFA to selfcertify that it meets the MDI definition
based solely on its knowledge of its
current membership and the community
it services (e.g., potential membership
identified in its charter), without any
supporting documentation. The Program
will have a significantly beneficial
economic impact on small entities
because it offers eligible credit unions,
including small entities, various forms
of technical assistance and educational
opportunities at no cost. NCUA
therefore certifies that the final IRPS
will not have a significant adverse
economic impact on a substantial
number of small credit unions.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.

as an MDI, such as links to U.S. Census
and HDMA data.
Section II of this final IRPS addresses
these comments. In response, NCUA has
narrowed the scope of the minority
representation requirement among a
credit union’s management to its board
of directors, thus reducing the
paperwork burden of assessing minority
representation among senior
management officials. Also, NCUA has
displayed on the agency’s Web site links
to sources of data for self-certifying as
an MDI; thus reducing the burden on
potential MDIs to locate the Web sites
for assessing source information to
document their self-certification. NCUA
will apply to OMB for approval of the
final IRPS.

Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) applies to rulemakings in which
an agency creates a new paperwork
burden on regulated entities or modifies
an existing burden. For purposes of the
PRA, a paperwork burden may take the
form of either a reporting or a
recordkeeping requirement, each
referred to as an information collection.
The 2013 proposed IRPS identified a
new information collection consisting of
the procedure for a credit union to
document its self-certification of
eligibility to participate in the
Program.40
The proposed IRPS invited interested
persons to submit comments on the
prescribed information collection
requirement to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), with a
copy to NCUA, at the address provided
in the preamble to the proposed IRPS.
NCUA received the following comments
on the information collection
requirement prescribed in the proposed
IRPS, encouraging the agency to:
• Remove the minority representation
requirement among management
officials in the MDI definition;
• restrict the collection of data by any
method that allows members to
voluntarily identify themselves as a
minority;
• require the majority of a credit
union’s members’ deposits and/or loan
products to be held by racial minorities;
• conform the annual review and
update of the minority self-certification
to the updating frequency of the data
supporting a self-certification (e.g.,
every ten years if using U.S. Census
data); and
• provide a portal on NCUA’s Web
site for credit unions to access the
sources of data relevant to self-certifying

Executive Order 13132

40 78

FR 46374 (July 31, 2013)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Jun 23, 2015

Executive Order 13132 encourages
independent regulatory agencies to
consider the impact of their actions on
state and local interests. NCUA, an
independent regulatory agency as
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily
complies with the Executive Order to
adhere to fundamental federalism
principles. This final IRPS will not have
a substantial direct effect on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. NCUA has
determined that this final IRPS does not
constitute a policy that has federalism
implications for purposes of the
executive order.
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
NCUA has determined that this final
IRPS will not affect family well-being
within the meaning of Section 654 of
the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law
105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

Jkt 235001

The Board’s goal is to promulgate
clear and understandable regulations
that impose minimal regulatory burden.
We request your comments on whether
this final IRPS is understandable and
minimally intrusive if implemented as
proposed.
By the National Credit Union
Administration Board on June 18, 2015.
Gerard S. Poliquin,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015–15515 Filed 6–23–15; 8:45 am]

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Committee Management; Notice of
Reestablishment
The Chief Operating Officer of the
National Science Foundation has
determined that the reestablishment of
the Proposal Review Panel for
International Science and Engineering is
necessary and in the public interest in
connection with the performance of the
duties imposed upon the National
Science Foundation (NSF) by 42 U.S.C.
1861 et seq. This determination follows
consultation with the Committee
Management Secretariat, General
Services Administration.
Name OF Committee: Proposal
Review Panel for International Science
and Engineering (#10749)
1. Nature/Purpose: The International
Science and Engineering proposal
review panel will advise the National
Science Foundation (NSF) on the merit
of proposals requesting financial
support of research and research-related
activities. The Committee will review
proposals submitted to NSF under the
purview of the Office of International
Science and Engineering Program
(OISE).
Responsible NSF Official: Rebecca
Keiser, Head, Office of International
Science and Engineering, National
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson
Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 1155,
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/
292–8710
Dated: June 18, 2015.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–15421 Filed 6–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

Agency Regulatory Goal

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

36363

The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is the
second notice for public comment; the
first was published in the Federal
Register at 79 FR 2014–18873 filed 11
August 2014, and no comments were
received. Comments regarding whether
the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM

24JNN1