27122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Notices
deficient equipment and practices. What
sort of recognition, if any, would be
most desirable?
D. Measures of Success
If the Agency decides to develop a
policy for tailored incentives for new
owners, EPA intends to develop a three-
year pilot program to test the
effectiveness of such incentives. In
order to objectively, effectively and
promptly evaluate the pilot program and
this approach, EPA must have already
identified clearly measurable outcomes
and efficient assessment methodologies.
The main goal of this program, and the
most important measure of success,
would be to show that compliance with
environmental laws and regulations has
improved, and that significant
environmental benefit has been
attained. However, there are different
approaches for determining how well
these goals have been met.
What measures of success should the
Agency adopt for the evaluation of a
pilot program? Important outcomes to
consider could be the number of
disclosures made under the pilot
program, the significance of the
violations involved, and the significance
of the pollutant reductions that can be
attributed to or associated with these
disclosures. Transparency of the
program, efficiency in administration,
and low transaction costs are also issues
to be considered in evaluating the
tailored incentive approach. EPA is
seeking comment on any potential
measures, and on the methodologies
necessary to accurately measure them.
III. Public Process
As part of EPA’s effort to obtain input
on whether to offer tailored incentives
for new owners self-disclosing under
the Audit Policy, the Agency is
planning to hold two public comment
sessions. At those two meetings,
interested parties may attend and
provide oral and written comments on
the issues. The first meeting is
scheduled for Washington, DC at the
J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., on June 12, 2007. The
second one is scheduled for San
Francisco at the Palace Hotel, 2 New
Montgomery St., on June 20, 2007. Both
meetings will begin at 10 a.m. and end
at 4 p.m.
The Agency is especially interested in
comments relating to the issues
specified in this Notice. After the
comment period closes, the Agency
plans to review and consider all
comments. If EPA decides to develop a
pilot program offering tailored
incentives to new owners beyond those
currently available under the Audit
Policy, the Agency would then publish
a second Federal Register notice to seek
comment on such a proposed pilot
program. After a second round of public
comment, the Agency would publish in
the Federal Register: The final
description of the pilot program; an
announcement of its start date; and a
description of how its success in
achieving increased self-auditing and
disclosure and significant improvement
to the environment will be evaluated.
EPA encourages parties of all interests,
including State and local government,
industry, not-for-profit organizations,
municipalities, public interest groups
and private citizens to comment, so that
the Agency can hear from as broad a
spectrum as possible.
IV. What Should I Consider as I
Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the Notice; Request for
Comments by docket number and other
identifying information (subject
heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
• Follow directions—The Agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and language.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If possible, provide any pertinent
information about the context for your
comments (e.g., the size and type of
acquisition transaction you have in
mind).
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Submit your comments on time.
Dated: April 30, 2007.
Granta Y. Nakayama,
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. E7–9197 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560 –50–P
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS
ANNOUNCEMENT: 72 FR 26115, Tuesday,
May 8, 2007.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME OF
MEETING: Wednesday, May 16, 2007,
9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
CHANGE IN THE MEETING:
Open Session:
Item Nos. 3. Full-Service Publication
Storage and Distribution Center
Contract has been removed from the
Agenda.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive
Officer, on (202) 663–4070.
Dated: May 10, 2007.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive
Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 07–2386 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570 –01–M
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Assessment Rate Adjustment
Guidelines for Large Institutions and
Insured Foreign Branches in Risk
Category I
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final guidelines.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is publishing the
guidelines it will use for determining
how adjustments of up to 0.50 basis
points would be made to the quarterly
assessment rates of insured institutions
defined as large Risk Category I
institutions, and insured foreign
branches in Risk Category I, according
to the Assessments Regulation. These
guidelines are intended to further clarify
the analytical processes, and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:21 May 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
deficient equipment and practices. What
sort of recognition, if any, would be
most desirable?
D. Measures of Success
If the Agency decides to develop a
policy for tailored incentives for new
owners, EPA intends to develop a three-
year pilot program to test the
effectiveness of such incentives. In
order to objectively, effectively and
promptly evaluate the pilot program and
this approach, EPA must have already
identified clearly measurable outcomes
and efficient assessment methodologies.
The main goal of this program, and the
most important measure of success,
would be to show that compliance with
environmental laws and regulations has
improved, and that significant
environmental benefit has been
attained. However, there are different
approaches for determining how well
these goals have been met.
What measures of success should the
Agency adopt for the evaluation of a
pilot program? Important outcomes to
consider could be the number of
disclosures made under the pilot
program, the significance of the
violations involved, and the significance
of the pollutant reductions that can be
attributed to or associated with these
disclosures. Transparency of the
program, efficiency in administration,
and low transaction costs are also issues
to be considered in evaluating the
tailored incentive approach. EPA is
seeking comment on any potential
measures, and on the methodologies
necessary to accurately measure them.
III. Public Process
As part of EPA’s effort to obtain input
on whether to offer tailored incentives
for new owners self-disclosing under
the Audit Policy, the Agency is
planning to hold two public comment
sessions. At those two meetings,
interested parties may attend and
provide oral and written comments on
the issues. The first meeting is
scheduled for Washington, DC at the
J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., on June 12, 2007. The
second one is scheduled for San
Francisco at the Palace Hotel, 2 New
Montgomery St., on June 20, 2007. Both
meetings will begin at 10 a.m. and end
at 4 p.m.
The Agency is especially interested in
comments relating to the issues
specified in this Notice. After the
comment period closes, the Agency
plans to review and consider all
comments. If EPA decides to develop a
pilot program offering tailored
incentives to new owners beyond those
currently available under the Audit
Policy, the Agency would then publish
a second Federal Register notice to seek
comment on such a proposed pilot
program. After a second round of public
comment, the Agency would publish in
the Federal Register: The final
description of the pilot program; an
announcement of its start date; and a
description of how its success in
achieving increased self-auditing and
disclosure and significant improvement
to the environment will be evaluated.
EPA encourages parties of all interests,
including State and local government,
industry, not-for-profit organizations,
municipalities, public interest groups
and private citizens to comment, so that
the Agency can hear from as broad a
spectrum as possible.
IV. What Should I Consider as I
Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the Notice; Request for
Comments by docket number and other
identifying information (subject
heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
• Follow directions—The Agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and language.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If possible, provide any pertinent
information about the context for your
comments (e.g., the size and type of
acquisition transaction you have in
mind).
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Submit your comments on time.
Dated: April 30, 2007.
Granta Y. Nakayama,
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. E7–9197 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560 –50–P
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS
ANNOUNCEMENT: 72 FR 26115, Tuesday,
May 8, 2007.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME OF
MEETING: Wednesday, May 16, 2007,
9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
CHANGE IN THE MEETING:
Open Session:
Item Nos. 3. Full-Service Publication
Storage and Distribution Center
Contract has been removed from the
Agenda.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive
Officer, on (202) 663–4070.
Dated: May 10, 2007.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive
Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 07–2386 Filed 5–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570 –01–M
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Assessment Rate Adjustment
Guidelines for Large Institutions and
Insured Foreign Branches in Risk
Category I
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final guidelines.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is publishing the
guidelines it will use for determining
how adjustments of up to 0.50 basis
points would be made to the quarterly
assessment rates of insured institutions
defined as large Risk Category I
institutions, and insured foreign
branches in Risk Category I, according
to the Assessments Regulation. These
guidelines are intended to further clarify
the analytical processes, and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:21 May 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
27123Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Notices
1 71 FR 69282 (November 30, 2006).
2 The trade organizations included the American
Bankers Association, America’s Community
Bankers, the Financial Services Roundtable, the
Clearing House, and the Committee for Sound
Lending.
controls applied to these processes, in
making assessment rate adjustment
determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Miguel Browne, Associate Director,
Division of Insurance and Research,
(202) 898–6789; Steven Burton, Senior
Financial Analyst, Division of Insurance
and Research, (202) 898–3539; and
Christopher Bellotto, Counsel, Legal
Division, (202) 898–3801.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Assessments Regulation (12
CFR 327.9 1), assessment rates of large
Risk Category I institutions are first
determined using either supervisory and
long-term debt issuer ratings, or
supervisory ratings and financial ratios
for large institutions that have no
publicly available long-term debt issuer
ratings. While the resulting assessment
rates are largely reflective of the rank
ordering of risk, the Assessments
Regulation indicates that FDIC may
determine, after consultation with the
primary federal regulator, whether
limited adjustments to these initial
assessment rates are warranted based
upon consideration of additional risk
information. Any adjustments will be
limited to no more than 0.50 basis
points higher or lower than the initial
assessment rate and in no case would
the resulting rate exceed the maximum
rate or fall below the minimum rate in
effect for an assessment period. In the
Assessments Regulation, the FDIC
acknowledged the need to further clarify
its processes for making adjustments to
assessment rates and indicated that no
adjustments would be made until
additional guidelines were approved by
the FDIC’s Board.
On February 21, 2007, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register, for a
30-day comment period, a set of
proposed guidelines that would be used
by the FDIC to evaluate when an
assessment rate adjustment is warranted
as well as the magnitude of that
adjustment. 72 FR 7878 (Feb. 21, 2007).
The FDIC sought public comment on the
proposed guidelines and received seven
comment letters: three from trade
organizations whose membership is
comprised of banks and savings
associations (one of these letters was
submitted jointly on behalf of three
trade organizations), three from large
banking organizations, and one from a
small community bank.2 The comments
received and the final guidelines
governing the assessment rate
adjustment process are discussed in
later sections.
II. Summary
For purposes of making assessment
rate adjustment decisions as transparent
as possible, the final guidelines describe
in detail the steps that will be used by
the FDIC to identify possible
inconsistencies between the rank
orderings of risk suggested by initial
assessment rates and other risk
information, the types of risk measures
that will be considered in these
comparisons, the relative importance
that the FDIC will attach to various
types of risk measures, and the controls
to ensure any decision to make an
adjustment is justified and well-
informed.
The first six guidelines describe the
analytical processes and considerations
that will determine whether an
assessment rate adjustment is warranted
as well as the magnitude of any
adjustment. In brief, the FDIC will
compare the risk ranking of an
institution’s initial assessment rate, as
compared to the assessment rates of
other large Risk Category I institutions,
with the risk rankings suggested by
other risk measures. The purpose of
these comparisons is to identify possible
material inconsistencies in the rank
orderings of risk suggested by the initial
assessment rate and these other risk
measures. Comparisons will encompass
risk measures that relate to both the
likelihood of failure and loss severity in
the event of failure. The analytical
process will consider all available risk
information pertaining to an
institution’s risk profile including
supervisory, market, and financial
performance information as well as
quantitative loss severity estimates,
qualitative indicators that pertain to
potential resolutions costs in the event
of failure, and information pertaining to
the ability of an institution to withstand
adverse conditions.
The next four guidelines described
the controls that will govern the
analytical process to ensure adjustment
decisions are justified, well supported,
and appropriately take into account
additional information and views held
by the primary federal regulator, the
appropriate state banking supervisor,
and the institution itself. These
guidelines include a requirement to
consult with an institution’s primary
federal regulator and appropriate state
banking supervisor before making an
adjustment, and to provide an
institution with advance notice of, and
an opportunity to respond to a pending
upward adjustment.
The timing of an assessment rate
adjustment will depend on whether it is
an upward or a downward adjustment.
Any upward adjustment would not be
reflected in an institution’s assessment
rates immediately, but rather in the first
assessment period after the assessment
period that prompted the notification of
an upward adjustment. The purpose of
this advance notice is to provide an
institution being considered for an
upward adjustment an opportunity to
respond with additional information
should the institution disagree with the
stated reasons for the upward
adjustment. Downward adjustments will
be applied immediately within the
assessment period being considered.
Any implemented upward or downward
adjustment will remain in effect until
the FDIC determines the adjustment is
no longer warranted. The removal of a
downward adjustment is subject to the
same advance notification requirements
as an upward adjustment.
Underlying the FDIC’s adjustment
authority is the need to preserve
consistency in the orderings of risk
indicated by these assessment rates, the
need to ensure fairness among all large
institutions, and the need to ensure that
assessment rates take into account all
available information that is relevant to
the FDIC’s risk-based assessment
decision. As noted in the proposed
guidelines, the FDIC expects that such
adjustments will be made relatively
infrequently and for a limited number of
institutions. This expectation reflects
the FDIC’s view that the use of agency
and supervisory ratings, or the use of
supervisory ratings and financial ratios
when agency ratings are not available,
will sufficiently reflect the risk profile
and rank orderings of risk in large Risk
Category I institutions in most cases.
Comments on the General Intent of the
Adjustment Guidelines
A joint letter submitted on behalf of
three trade organizations (referred to
hereafter as the ‘‘joint letter’’) agrees that
it is critical for the FDIC to identify
inconsistencies and anomalies between
initial assessment rates and relative risk
levels posed by large Risk Category I
institutions. The joint letter also urges
the FDIC to closely monitor assessment
rates produced by the Assessment Rule
and to consider modifying the base
methodology for determining initial
assessment rates if a large number of
assessment rate adjustments were
deemed necessary. The FDIC agrees
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:21 May 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1 71 FR 69282 (November 30, 2006).
2 The trade organizations included the American
Bankers Association, America’s Community
Bankers, the Financial Services Roundtable, the
Clearing House, and the Committee for Sound
Lending.
controls applied to these processes, in
making assessment rate adjustment
determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Miguel Browne, Associate Director,
Division of Insurance and Research,
(202) 898–6789; Steven Burton, Senior
Financial Analyst, Division of Insurance
and Research, (202) 898–3539; and
Christopher Bellotto, Counsel, Legal
Division, (202) 898–3801.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Assessments Regulation (12
CFR 327.9 1), assessment rates of large
Risk Category I institutions are first
determined using either supervisory and
long-term debt issuer ratings, or
supervisory ratings and financial ratios
for large institutions that have no
publicly available long-term debt issuer
ratings. While the resulting assessment
rates are largely reflective of the rank
ordering of risk, the Assessments
Regulation indicates that FDIC may
determine, after consultation with the
primary federal regulator, whether
limited adjustments to these initial
assessment rates are warranted based
upon consideration of additional risk
information. Any adjustments will be
limited to no more than 0.50 basis
points higher or lower than the initial
assessment rate and in no case would
the resulting rate exceed the maximum
rate or fall below the minimum rate in
effect for an assessment period. In the
Assessments Regulation, the FDIC
acknowledged the need to further clarify
its processes for making adjustments to
assessment rates and indicated that no
adjustments would be made until
additional guidelines were approved by
the FDIC’s Board.
On February 21, 2007, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register, for a
30-day comment period, a set of
proposed guidelines that would be used
by the FDIC to evaluate when an
assessment rate adjustment is warranted
as well as the magnitude of that
adjustment. 72 FR 7878 (Feb. 21, 2007).
The FDIC sought public comment on the
proposed guidelines and received seven
comment letters: three from trade
organizations whose membership is
comprised of banks and savings
associations (one of these letters was
submitted jointly on behalf of three
trade organizations), three from large
banking organizations, and one from a
small community bank.2 The comments
received and the final guidelines
governing the assessment rate
adjustment process are discussed in
later sections.
II. Summary
For purposes of making assessment
rate adjustment decisions as transparent
as possible, the final guidelines describe
in detail the steps that will be used by
the FDIC to identify possible
inconsistencies between the rank
orderings of risk suggested by initial
assessment rates and other risk
information, the types of risk measures
that will be considered in these
comparisons, the relative importance
that the FDIC will attach to various
types of risk measures, and the controls
to ensure any decision to make an
adjustment is justified and well-
informed.
The first six guidelines describe the
analytical processes and considerations
that will determine whether an
assessment rate adjustment is warranted
as well as the magnitude of any
adjustment. In brief, the FDIC will
compare the risk ranking of an
institution’s initial assessment rate, as
compared to the assessment rates of
other large Risk Category I institutions,
with the risk rankings suggested by
other risk measures. The purpose of
these comparisons is to identify possible
material inconsistencies in the rank
orderings of risk suggested by the initial
assessment rate and these other risk
measures. Comparisons will encompass
risk measures that relate to both the
likelihood of failure and loss severity in
the event of failure. The analytical
process will consider all available risk
information pertaining to an
institution’s risk profile including
supervisory, market, and financial
performance information as well as
quantitative loss severity estimates,
qualitative indicators that pertain to
potential resolutions costs in the event
of failure, and information pertaining to
the ability of an institution to withstand
adverse conditions.
The next four guidelines described
the controls that will govern the
analytical process to ensure adjustment
decisions are justified, well supported,
and appropriately take into account
additional information and views held
by the primary federal regulator, the
appropriate state banking supervisor,
and the institution itself. These
guidelines include a requirement to
consult with an institution’s primary
federal regulator and appropriate state
banking supervisor before making an
adjustment, and to provide an
institution with advance notice of, and
an opportunity to respond to a pending
upward adjustment.
The timing of an assessment rate
adjustment will depend on whether it is
an upward or a downward adjustment.
Any upward adjustment would not be
reflected in an institution’s assessment
rates immediately, but rather in the first
assessment period after the assessment
period that prompted the notification of
an upward adjustment. The purpose of
this advance notice is to provide an
institution being considered for an
upward adjustment an opportunity to
respond with additional information
should the institution disagree with the
stated reasons for the upward
adjustment. Downward adjustments will
be applied immediately within the
assessment period being considered.
Any implemented upward or downward
adjustment will remain in effect until
the FDIC determines the adjustment is
no longer warranted. The removal of a
downward adjustment is subject to the
same advance notification requirements
as an upward adjustment.
Underlying the FDIC’s adjustment
authority is the need to preserve
consistency in the orderings of risk
indicated by these assessment rates, the
need to ensure fairness among all large
institutions, and the need to ensure that
assessment rates take into account all
available information that is relevant to
the FDIC’s risk-based assessment
decision. As noted in the proposed
guidelines, the FDIC expects that such
adjustments will be made relatively
infrequently and for a limited number of
institutions. This expectation reflects
the FDIC’s view that the use of agency
and supervisory ratings, or the use of
supervisory ratings and financial ratios
when agency ratings are not available,
will sufficiently reflect the risk profile
and rank orderings of risk in large Risk
Category I institutions in most cases.
Comments on the General Intent of the
Adjustment Guidelines
A joint letter submitted on behalf of
three trade organizations (referred to
hereafter as the ‘‘joint letter’’) agrees that
it is critical for the FDIC to identify
inconsistencies and anomalies between
initial assessment rates and relative risk
levels posed by large Risk Category I
institutions. The joint letter also urges
the FDIC to closely monitor assessment
rates produced by the Assessment Rule
and to consider modifying the base
methodology for determining initial
assessment rates if a large number of
assessment rate adjustments were
deemed necessary. The FDIC agrees
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:21 May 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MYN1.SGM 14MYN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES