Development of a Guarantee Program for Troubled Assets, 61452-61453 [E8-24686]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61452
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Notices
7. Define the scope of work for the
proposed project and the anticipated
project schedule. Describe the proposed
project’s physical location (as
applicable), and the extent to which the
proposed project consists of planning
and/or implementation of capital
improvements. Include any drawings,
plans, or schematics that have been
prepared relating to the proposed
project. If the funding from the Program
is only going to be a portion of the
overall funding for the project, describe
the complete project and specify the
portion covered by Federal funding.
8. Present a detailed budget for the
proposed project. At a minimum, the
budget should separate total cost of the
project into the following categories, if
applicable: (1) Administrative and legal
expenses; (2) land, structures, rights-ofway, and appraisals; (3) relocation
expenses and payments; (4)
architectural and engineering fees; (5)
project inspection fees; (6) site work; (7)
demolition and removal; (8)
construction labor, supervision, and
management; (9) materials, by type; (10)
miscellaneous; and (11) contingencies.
Also specify the amount of costs in each
category that are proposed to be funded
from Federal funds, and the amount to
be funded by non-Federal matching
funds.
9. Describe and provide evidence of
the source(s) and amount of matching
funds.
10. Describe proposed project
implementation and project
management provisions. Include
descriptions of expected arrangements
for project contracting, contract
oversight, change-order management,
risk management, and conformance to
Federal requirements for project
progress reporting.
11. Describe, in as much detail as
possible, the next steps that will be
required beyond those described in the
application to foster implementation of
the planned maglev services, such as
technological development or testing,
additional planning, engineering or site
investigation activities, and right-of-way
acquisition.
Format: Excluding spreadsheets,
drawings, and tables, the narrative
statement for grant applications may not
exceed thirty pages in length. With the
exclusion of oversized engineering
drawings (which may be submitted in
hard copy to the FRA at the address
above), all application materials should
be submitted as attachments through
Grants.Gov. Spreadsheets consisting of
budget or financial information should
be submitted via Grants.Gov as
Microsoft Excel (or compatible)
documents.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad
Development.
[FR Doc. E8–24567 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Development of a Guarantee Program
for Troubled Assets
Department of the Treasury,
Departmental Offices.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of the
Treasury invites the general public to
comment on a program to guarantee the
timely payment of principal of, and
interest on, troubled assets originated or
issued prior to March 14, 2008, as
authorized by Section 102 of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008 (EESA).
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before October 28, 2008
to be assured of consideration.
Submission of Comments: Please
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal—
‘‘Regulations.gov.’’ Go to https://
www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments. The ‘‘How to Use this
Site’’ and ‘‘User Tips’’ link on the
Regulations.gov home page provides
information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for submitting or
viewing public comments, viewing
other supporting and related materials,
and viewing the docket after the close
of the comment period.
Please include your name, affiliation,
address, e-mail address and telephone
number(s) in your comment. All
statements received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
TARPInsurance@do.treas.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
102 of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–
343) (EESA) charges the Secretary of the
Treasury to develop a program to
guarantee the timely payment of
principal of, and interest on, troubled
assets originated or issued prior to
March 14, 2008. The Secretary is
authorized to set and collect premiums
from participating financial institutions
by category or class of asset, taking into
consideration the credit risk
characteristics of the asset being
guaranteed. The premium must be
sufficient to cover anticipated claims,
based on actuarial analysis, and ensure
that taxpayers are fully protected. The
structure of the guarantee program may
take any number of forms and may vary
by asset class.
The Treasury Department is soliciting
comments to assist in the development
of the guarantee program. The Treasury
Department is particularly interested in
comments on the specific questions set
forth below.
1 What are the key issues Treasury
should address in establishing the
guarantee program for troubled assets?
1.1 Should the program offer
insurance against losses for both
individual whole loans and individual
mortgage backed securities (MBS)?
1.2 What is the appropriate structure
for such a program? How should the
program accommodate various classes
of troubled assets? Should the program
differ by the degree to which an asset is
troubled?
1.2.1 What are the key issues to
consider with respect to guaranteeing
whole first mortgages?
1.2.2 What are the key issues to
consider with respect to guaranteeing
HELOCs and other junior liens?
1.2.3 What are the key issues to
consider with respect to guaranteeing
MBS?
1.2.4 What are the key issues
associated with guaranteeing financial
instruments other than mortgage related
assets originated or issued before March
14, 2008 that could be important for
promoting financial market stability?
1.3 What are the key issues to
consider with respect to setting the
payout of the guarantee?
1.3.1 Should the payout be equal to
principal and interest at the time the
asset was originated or to some other
value? What should that value be? What
would be the impact of offering
guarantees of less than 100 percent of
original principal and interest?
1.3.2 Should payout vary by asset
class? If so, please describe using the
same asset classes as enumerated under
1.21–1.24.
1.4 What event should trigger the
payout under the guarantee? Should the
holder be able to present the claim at
will or should there be a set date?
Should this date differ by asset class?
Should this date differ by the degree to
which the asset is troubled?
1.5 Should the holder be permitted
to sell the troubled asset with the
program guarantee? If appropriate,
should asset sales be restricted to
eligible financial institutions or should
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Notices
there be no restrictions to promote
liquidity in the marketplace?
1.6 What are the key issues the
Treasury should consider in
determining the possible losses to
which the government would be
exposed in offering the guarantee? What
methodology should be used to
determine possible losses? Does it differ
by asset class? If so, please describe
using the same asset classes as
enumerated under 1.21–1.24. Does it
differ by the degree to which the asset
is troubled?
1.7 What are the key elements the
Treasury should consider in setting
premiums for this program? Is it feasible
or appropriate to set premiums
reflecting the prices of similar assets
purchased under Section 101 of the
EESA?
1.7.1 If use of prices of similar assets
purchased under Section 101 of the
EESA are not feasible or appropriate,
should premiums be set by use of
market mechanisms similar to (but
separate from) those contemplated for
the troubled assets purchase program?
How would this be implemented? If not
feasible or appropriate, what
methodologies should be used to set
premiums?
1.7.2 Do these considerations of
feasibility or appropriateness vary by
asset class? If so, please describe using
the same asset classes as enumerated
under 1.21–1.24. Should the premiums
vary by the degree to which the asset is
troubled?
1.8 How and in what form should
payment of premiums be scheduled?
2 How should a guarantee program
be designed to minimize adverse
selection, given that the program must
be voluntary? Is there a way to limit
adverse selection that avoids
individually analyzing assets?
3 What legal, accounting, or
regulatory issues would such a
guarantee program raise?
4 What administrative and/or
operational challenges would such a
guarantee program create?
4.1 What expertise would Treasury
need to operate such a guarantee
program? Please describe for all facets of
the program.
5 What are the key issues to be
considered in determining the eligibility
of a given type of financial institution to
participate in this program? Should
these eligibility provisions differ from
those of the troubled asset purchase
program?
6 What are the key issues to be
considered in determining the eligibility
of a given asset to be guaranteed by this
program? Should eligibility provisions
of assets to be guaranteed under this
program differ from those of the
troubled asset purchase program?
7 Assuming the guarantee is priced
to cover expected claims, are there
situations (perhaps created by
regulatory or accounting considerations)
in which financial institutions would
prefer this program to the troubled asset
purchase program? Please describe.
7.1 Does this preference differ by
type and condition of the asset? For
what troubled assets might financial
institutions choose to participate in the
guarantee program rather than sell
under the troubled asset purchase
program? Is accommodating this choice
likely to best promote the goals of the
EESA? Does it adequately protect the
taxpayer? If not, what design feature
should be included to assure these goals
are met?
Dated: October 10, 2008.
Lindsay Valdeon,
Deputy Executive Secretary, Treasury
Department.
[FR Doc. E8–24686 Filed 10–14–08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4810–25–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices; Debt
Management Advisory Committee;
Meeting
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(2), that a
meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams
Hotel, 16th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on
November 4, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. of the
following debt management advisory
committee: Treasury Borrowing
Advisory Committee of The Securities
Industry and Financial Markets
Association.
The agenda for the meeting provides
for a charge by the Secretary of the
Treasury or his designate that the
Committee discuss particular issues and
conduct a working session. Following
the working session, the Committee will
present a written report of its
recommendations. The meeting will be
closed to the public, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d) and Public
Law 103–202, section 202(c)(1)(B)(31
U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my
determination, pursuant to the authority
placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C.
App. 2, section 10(d) and vested in me
by Treasury Department Order No. 101–
05, that the meeting will consist of
discussions and debates of the issues
presented to the Committee by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the
making of recommendations of the
Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to
61453
Public Law 103–202, section
202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is
exempt from disclosure under that
provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In
addition, the meeting is concerned with
information that is exempt from
disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
The public interest requires that such
meetings be closed to the public because
the Treasury Department requires frank
and full advice from representatives of
the financial community prior to
making its final decisions on major
financing operations. Historically, this
advice has been offered by debt
management advisory committees
established by the several major
segments of the financial community.
When so utilized, such a committee is
recognized to be an advisory committee
under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 3.
Although the Treasury’s final
announcement of financing plans may
not reflect the recommendations
provided in reports of the Committee,
premature disclosure of the Committee’s
deliberations and reports would be
likely to lead to significant financial
speculation in the securities market.
Thus, this meeting falls within the
exemption covered by 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical
briefing to the press on the day before
the Committee meeting, following the
release of a statement of economic
conditions, financing estimates and
technical charts. This briefing will give
the press an opportunity to ask
questions about financing projections
and technical charts. The day after the
Committee meeting, Treasury will
release the minutes of the meeting, any
charts that were discussed at the
meeting, and the Committee’s report to
the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is
responsible for maintaining records of
debt management advisory committee
meetings and for providing annual
reports setting forth a summary of
Committee activities and such other
matters as may be informative to the
public consistent with the policy of 5
U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal
Officer or other responsible agency
official who may be contacted for
additional information is Karthik
Ramanathan, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Financial Markets (202) 622–2042.
Dated: October 3, 2008.
Anthony W. Ryan,
Acting Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.
[FR Doc. E8–24361 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–25–M
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61452-61453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24686]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Development of a Guarantee Program for Troubled Assets
AGENCY: Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury invites the general public to
comment on a program to guarantee the timely payment of principal of,
and interest on, troubled assets originated or issued prior to March
14, 2008, as authorized by Section 102 of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA).
DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 28,
2008 to be assured of consideration.
Submission of Comments: Please submit comments electronically
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal--``Regulations.gov.'' Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments. The ``How
to Use this Site'' and ``User Tips'' link on the Regulations.gov home
page provides information on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for submitting or viewing public comments, viewing other
supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the
close of the comment period.
Please include your name, affiliation, address, e-mail address and
telephone number(s) in your comment. All statements received, including
attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TARPInsurance@do.treas.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 102 of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-343) (EESA) charges the
Secretary of the Treasury to develop a program to guarantee the timely
payment of principal of, and interest on, troubled assets originated or
issued prior to March 14, 2008. The Secretary is authorized to set and
collect premiums from participating financial institutions by category
or class of asset, taking into consideration the credit risk
characteristics of the asset being guaranteed. The premium must be
sufficient to cover anticipated claims, based on actuarial analysis,
and ensure that taxpayers are fully protected. The structure of the
guarantee program may take any number of forms and may vary by asset
class.
The Treasury Department is soliciting comments to assist in the
development of the guarantee program. The Treasury Department is
particularly interested in comments on the specific questions set forth
below.
1 What are the key issues Treasury should address in establishing
the guarantee program for troubled assets?
1.1 Should the program offer insurance against losses for both
individual whole loans and individual mortgage backed securities (MBS)?
1.2 What is the appropriate structure for such a program? How
should the program accommodate various classes of troubled assets?
Should the program differ by the degree to which an asset is troubled?
1.2.1 What are the key issues to consider with respect to
guaranteeing whole first mortgages?
1.2.2 What are the key issues to consider with respect to
guaranteeing HELOCs and other junior liens?
1.2.3 What are the key issues to consider with respect to
guaranteeing MBS?
1.2.4 What are the key issues associated with guaranteeing
financial instruments other than mortgage related assets originated or
issued before March 14, 2008 that could be important for promoting
financial market stability?
1.3 What are the key issues to consider with respect to setting the
payout of the guarantee?
1.3.1 Should the payout be equal to principal and interest at the
time the asset was originated or to some other value? What should that
value be? What would be the impact of offering guarantees of less than
100 percent of original principal and interest?
1.3.2 Should payout vary by asset class? If so, please describe
using the same asset classes as enumerated under 1.21-1.24.
1.4 What event should trigger the payout under the guarantee?
Should the holder be able to present the claim at will or should there
be a set date? Should this date differ by asset class? Should this date
differ by the degree to which the asset is troubled?
1.5 Should the holder be permitted to sell the troubled asset with
the program guarantee? If appropriate, should asset sales be restricted
to eligible financial institutions or should
[[Page 61453]]
there be no restrictions to promote liquidity in the marketplace?
1.6 What are the key issues the Treasury should consider in
determining the possible losses to which the government would be
exposed in offering the guarantee? What methodology should be used to
determine possible losses? Does it differ by asset class? If so, please
describe using the same asset classes as enumerated under 1.21-1.24.
Does it differ by the degree to which the asset is troubled?
1.7 What are the key elements the Treasury should consider in
setting premiums for this program? Is it feasible or appropriate to set
premiums reflecting the prices of similar assets purchased under
Section 101 of the EESA?
1.7.1 If use of prices of similar assets purchased under Section
101 of the EESA are not feasible or appropriate, should premiums be set
by use of market mechanisms similar to (but separate from) those
contemplated for the troubled assets purchase program? How would this
be implemented? If not feasible or appropriate, what methodologies
should be used to set premiums?
1.7.2 Do these considerations of feasibility or appropriateness
vary by asset class? If so, please describe using the same asset
classes as enumerated under 1.21-1.24. Should the premiums vary by the
degree to which the asset is troubled?
1.8 How and in what form should payment of premiums be scheduled?
2 How should a guarantee program be designed to minimize adverse
selection, given that the program must be voluntary? Is there a way to
limit adverse selection that avoids individually analyzing assets?
3 What legal, accounting, or regulatory issues would such a
guarantee program raise?
4 What administrative and/or operational challenges would such a
guarantee program create?
4.1 What expertise would Treasury need to operate such a guarantee
program? Please describe for all facets of the program.
5 What are the key issues to be considered in determining the
eligibility of a given type of financial institution to participate in
this program? Should these eligibility provisions differ from those of
the troubled asset purchase program?
6 What are the key issues to be considered in determining the
eligibility of a given asset to be guaranteed by this program? Should
eligibility provisions of assets to be guaranteed under this program
differ from those of the troubled asset purchase program?
7 Assuming the guarantee is priced to cover expected claims, are
there situations (perhaps created by regulatory or accounting
considerations) in which financial institutions would prefer this
program to the troubled asset purchase program? Please describe.
7.1 Does this preference differ by type and condition of the asset?
For what troubled assets might financial institutions choose to
participate in the guarantee program rather than sell under the
troubled asset purchase program? Is accommodating this choice likely to
best promote the goals of the EESA? Does it adequately protect the
taxpayer? If not, what design feature should be included to assure
these goals are met?
Dated: October 10, 2008.
Lindsay Valdeon,
Deputy Executive Secretary, Treasury Department.
[FR Doc. E8-24686 Filed 10-14-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
