12 C.F.R. § 1263.17 – Rebuttable presumptions.

(a) Rebutting presumptive compliance. The presumption that an applicant meeting the requirements of §§ 1263.7 to 1263.16 is in compliance with the corresponding eligibility requirements of section 4(a) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1424(a)) and § 1263.6(a) and (b), may be rebutted, and the Bank may deny membership to an applicant, if the Bank obtains substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of compliance.
(b) Rebutting presumptive noncompliance. The presumption that an applicant not meeting a particular requirement of §§ 1263.8, 1263.11, 1263.12, 1263.13, or 1263.16, is not in compliance with the corresponding eligibility requirement of section 4(a) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1424(a)) and § 1263.6(a) may be rebutted and the applicant shall be deemed to be in compliance with an eligibility requirement, if it satisfies the applicable requirements in this section.
(c) Presumptive noncompliance by insurance company applicant with “subject to inspection and regulation” requirement of § 1263.8. If an insurance company applicant is not subject to inspection and regulation by an appropriate State regulator accredited by the NAIC, as required by § 1263.8, the applicant or the Bank shall prepare a written justification that provides substantial evidence acceptable to the Bank that the applicant is subject to inspection and regulation as required by § 1263.6(a)(2), notwithstanding the regulator's lack of NAIC accreditation.
(d) Presumptive noncompliance with financial condition requirements of §§ 1263.11 and 1263.16—(1) Applicants subject to § 1263.11. For applicants subject to § 1263.11, in the case of an applicant's lack of a composite regulatory examination rating within the two-year period required by § 1263.11(b)(1), a variance from the rating required by § 1263.11(b)(3)(i), or a variance from a performance trend criterion required by § 1263.11(b)(3)(i), the applicant or the Bank shall prepare a written justification pertaining to such requirement that provides substantial evidence acceptable to the Bank that the applicant is in the financial condition required by § 1263.6(a)(4), notwithstanding the lack of rating or variance.
(2) Applicants subject to § 1263.16. For applicants subject to § 1263.16, in the case of an insurance company applicant's variance from a capital requirement or standard of § 1263.16(a) or, in the case of a CDFI applicant's variance from the standards of § 1263.16(b), the applicant or the Bank shall prepare a written justification pertaining to such requirement or standard that provides substantial evidence acceptable to the Bank that the applicant is in the financial condition required by § 1263.6(a)(4), notwithstanding the variance.
(e) Presumptive noncompliance with character of management requirement of § 1263.12—(1) Enforcement actions. If an applicant or any of its directors or senior officers is subject to, or operating under, any enforcement action instituted by its appropriate regulator, the applicant shall provide or the Bank shall obtain:
1. (i) Regulator confirmation. Written or verbal confirmation from the applicant's appropriate regulator that the applicant or its directors or senior officers are in substantial compliance with all aspects of the enforcement action; or
2. (ii) Written analysis. A written analysis acceptable to the Bank indicating that the applicant or its directors or senior officers are in substantial compliance with all aspects of the enforcement action. The written analysis shall state each action the applicant or its directors or senior officers are required to take by the enforcement action, the actions actually taken by the applicant or its directors or senior officers, and whether the applicant regards this as substantial compliance with all aspects of the enforcement action.
3. (2) Criminal, civil or administrative proceedings. If an applicant or any of its directors or senior officers has been the subject of any criminal, civil or administrative proceedings reflecting upon creditworthiness, business judgment, or moral turpitude since the most recent regulatory examination report or, in the case of a CDFI applicant, during the past three years, the applicant shall provide or the Bank shall obtain—
  1. (i) Regulator confirmation. Written or verbal confirmation from the applicant's appropriate regulator that the proceedings will not likely result in an enforcement action; or
  2. (ii) Written analysis. A written analysis acceptable to the Bank indicating that the proceedings will not likely result in an enforcement action or, in the case of a CDFI applicant, that the proceedings will not likely have a significantly deleterious effect on the applicant's operations. The written analysis shall state the severity of the charges, and any mitigating action taken by the applicant or its directors or senior officers.
4. (3) Criminal, civil or administrative monetary liabilities, lawsuits or judgments. If there are any known potential criminal, civil or administrative monetary liabilities, material pending lawsuits, or unsatisfied judgments against the applicant or any of its directors or senior officers since the most recent regulatory examination report or, in the case of a CDFI applicant, occurring within the past three years, that are significant to the applicant's operations, the applicant shall provide or the Bank shall obtain—
  1. (i) Regulator confirmation. Written or verbal confirmation from the applicant's appropriate regulator that the liabilities, lawsuits or judgments will not likely cause the applicant to fall below its applicable capital requirements set forth in §§ 1263.11(b)(2) and 1263.16(a); or
  2. (ii) Written analysis. A written analysis acceptable to the Bank indicating that the liabilities, lawsuits or judgments will not likely cause the applicant to fall below its applicable capital requirements set forth in § 1263.11(b)(2) or § 1263.16(a), or the net asset ratio set forth in § 1263.16(b)(2)(i). The written analysis shall state the likelihood of the applicant or its directors or senior officers prevailing, and the financial consequences if the applicant or its directors or senior officers do not prevail.
(f) Presumptive noncompliance with home financing policy requirements of §§ 1263.13 and 1263.14(d). If an applicant received a “Substantial Non-Compliance” rating on its most recent CRA performance evaluation, or a “Needs to Improve” CRA rating on its most recent CRA performance evaluation and a CRA rating of “Needs to Improve” or better on any immediately preceding formal CRA performance evaluation, the applicant shall provide or the Bank shall obtain:
1. (1) Regulator confirmation. Written or verbal confirmation from the applicant's appropriate regulator of the applicant's recent satisfactory CRA performance, including any corrective action that substantially improved upon the deficiencies cited in the most recent CRA performance evaluation(s); or
2. (2) Written analysis. A written analysis acceptable to the Bank demonstrating that the CRA rating is unrelated to home financing, and providing substantial evidence of how and why the applicant's home financing credit policy and lending practices meet the credit needs of its community.