49478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 

1See Letters from Edward J. DeMarco, Acting 

Director, to Senator Tim Johnson, Chairman, and 

Senator Richard C. Shelby, Ranking Member, of the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 

and to Representative Spencer Bachus, Chairman, 

and Representative Barney Frank, Ranking Member, 

of the Committee on Financial Services, all dated 

February 4, 2011. 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

In 1989, Congress established RefCorp 

as a vehicle to provide funding for the 

Resolution Trust Corporation to finance 

its efforts to resolve the savings and loan 

crisis. 12 U.S.C. 1441b(a), (b). RefCorp 

issued approximately $30 billion of 

long-term bonds, the last of which will 

mature in April 2030. The interest due 

on the RefCorp bonds is paid from 

several sources, including contributions 

from the Banks. 

As initially enacted, the law required 

the Banks to contribute $300 million 

annually toward the RefCorp interest 

payments. Public Law 101–73, Title V, 

§ 511(a), 103 Stat. 394, (August 9, 1989). 

In 1999, Congress amended the law to 

require each Bank to pay 20 percent of 

its net earnings annually toward the 

RefCorp interest payments. Public Law 

106–102, Title VI, § 607(a), 113 Stat. 

1455, (November 12, 1999), codified at 

12 U.S.C. 1441b(f)(2)(C)(i). The Banks’ 

payment obligation was to continue 

until the value of all payments made by 

the Banks to RefCorp equaled the value 

of a benchmark annuity of $300 million 

per year that commenced on the date 

that the RefCorp bonds had been issued 

and ended on the last maturity date for 

the RefCorp bonds, which is April 15, 

2030. 

The law further directed the Federal 

Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) 

to determine annually the extent to 

which the value of the Banks’ 

contributions for that year exceeded or 

fell short of the value of the benchmark 

annuity. In determining those values, 

the law required the Finance Board to 

use present-value factors established in 

consultation with the Secretary of the 

Treasury and further required that the 

Finance Board terminate the Banks’ 

payment obligation once the value of 

their payments equaled the value of the 

benchmark annuity. Regulations of the 

Finance Board, which remain in effect, 

address the manner in which the 

calculations of the Banks’ RefCorp 

obligation, including its termination, are 

to be conducted. 12 CFR part 997. In 

2008, Congress established FHFA, 

which, among other things, succeeded 

to all of the above responsibilities of the 

Finance Board with respect to the 

determinations that are to be made 

regarding the RefCorp payments, and 

was required to submit semiannual 

reports to Congress that estimated the 

projected date on which the Banks 

would satisfy their obligation to 

contribute to the RefCorp debt service 

payments. Public Law 110–289, Title I, 

§ 1101, Title II, §§ 1204, 1213, Title III, 

§ 1312, 122 Stat. 2661, 2785–86, 2791, 

2798 (July 30, 2008). 

II. Termination of Payment Obligation 

The Banks make their RefCorp 

contributions on a quarterly basis, and 

FHFA determines how the value of 

those payments compares to the value of 

the benchmark annuity on a quarterly 

basis as well. To the extent that any 

quarterly RefCorp payments exceed $75 

million (one quarter of the $300 million 

benchmark annuity) FHFA applies the 

excess portion to simulate the purchase 

of zero-coupon Treasury bonds, which 

‘‘defeases’’ the most-distant of the 

Banks’ remaining RefCorp payments 

and effectively shortens the duration of 

their repayment obligation. 

Since 1999, all but two of the Banks’ 

quarterly RefCorp contributions have 

exceeded the $75 million benchmark, 

which has caused the termination date 

to move incrementally closer. In its 

most recent report to Congress on the 

RefCorp obligation, FHFA projected that 

if the Banks’ quarterly earnings 

subsequent to December 31, 2010, were 

to equal their average quarterly income 

over the preceding four quarters, then 

their final RefCorp contribution would 

be made with the payment due on July 

15, 2011.1

After consulting with the Department 

of the Treasury and conducting the 

calculations in accordance with 12 CFR 

Part 997, FHFA determined that the 

remaining amount owed by the Banks 

for the RefCorp debt service was 

$75,148,203.13, which amount the 

Banks paid on July 15, 2011. 

Accordingly, the Director has 

determined that the payment made on 

July 15, 2011, caused the value of all 

RefCorp payments made by the Banks to 

that date to equal the value of the 

benchmark annuity, which terminates 

the obligation of the Banks to contribute 

toward the debt service for the RefCorp 

bonds. 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1441b(f)(2)(C)(iii). 

Dated: August 5th, 2011. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20311 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreements to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within ten days 

of the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register. Copies of the 

agreements are available through the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the 

Office of Agreements at (202)- 523–5793 

or tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 011383–045. 

Title: Venezuelan Discussion 

Agreement. 

Parties: Hamburg-Su ̈d; King Ocean 

Service de Venezuela; Seaboard Marine 

Ltd., and SeaFreight Line, Ltd. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Conner; 1627 I Street, NW., 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006– 

4007. 

Synopsis: The amendment would 

replace King Ocean Service de 

Venezuela with King Ocean Services 

Limited, Inc. as a party to the 

agreement. 

Agreement No.: 201162–008. 

Title: NYSA–ILA Assessment 

Agreement. 

Parties: International Longshoremen’s 

Association and New York Shipping 

Association. 

Filing Parties: Donato Caruso, Esq.; 

The Lambos Firm; 303 South Broadway, 

Suite 410; Tarrytown, NY 10591 and 

Andre Mazzola, Esq.; Marrinan & 

Mazzola Mardon, P.C.; 26 Broadway, 

17th Floor; New York, NY 10004. 

Synopsis: The amendment reduces 

the assessment rate on certain 

containers in the Bermuda trade. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20329 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49479 

1 72 FR 15544 et seq. 

2This number, which was also used in the 2008 

clearance request, appears to be consistent with the 

number of business format franchise offerings 

registered in compliance with state franchise laws, 

and listed in franchise directories. 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The application also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than September 6, 

2011. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice 

President) 230 South LaSalle Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: 

1. Wintrust Financial Corporation, 

Lake Forest, Illinois; to merge with Elgin 

State Bancorp, Inc., and thereby 

indirectly acquire Elgin State Bank, both 

in Elgin, Illinois. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, August 5, 2011. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20261 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Franchise Rule Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The information collection 

requirements described below will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). The FTC is seeking public 

comments on its proposal to extend 

through December 31, 2014, the current 

PRA clearance for information 

collection requirements contained in its 

Trade Regulation Rule on Disclosure 

Requirements and Prohibitions 

Concerning Franchising (‘‘Franchise 

Rule’’). That clearance expires on 

December 31, 2011. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before October 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Franchise Rule, PRA 

Comment, FTC File No. P094400’’ on 

your comment, and file your comment 

online at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

franchiserulePRA by following the 

instructions on the Web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver your comment to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the proposed information 

requirements for the Franchise Rule 

should be addressed to Craig Tregillus, 

Staff Attorney, Division of Marketing 

Practices, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

Room H–238, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– 

2970. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from 

OMB for each collection of information 

they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of 

information’’ means agency requests or 

requirements that members of the public 

submit reports, keep records, or provide 

information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by 

section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the 

FTC is providing this opportunity for 

public comment before requesting that 

OMB extend the existing paperwork 

clearance for the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 

part 436 (OMB Control Number 3084– 

0107). 

The FTC invites comments on: (1) 

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; 

(2) 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; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to 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. 

The Franchise Rule ensures that 

consumers who are considering a 

franchise investment have access to the 

material information they need to make 

an informed investment decision 

provided in a format that facilitates 

comparisons of different franchise 

offerings. The Rule requires that 

franchisors disclose this information to 

consumers and maintain records to 

facilitate enforcement of the Rule. 

Amendments to the Rule promulgated 

on March 30, 2007, which took effect 

after a one-year phase-in on July 1, 

2008, merged the Rule’s disclosure 

requirements with the disclosure format 

accepted by 15 states that have franchise 

registration or disclosure laws.1 The 

amended Rule has significantly 

minimized any compliance burden 

beyond what is already required by state 

law. 

The amended Rule requires 

franchisors to furnish to prospective 

purchasers with a Franchise Disclosure 

Document (‘‘FDD’’) that provides 

information relating to the franchisor, 

its business, the nature of the proposed 

franchise, and any representations by 

the franchisor about financial 

performance regarding actual or 

potential sales, income, or profits made 

to a prospective franchise purchaser. 

The franchisor must preserve materially 

different copies of its disclosures and 

franchise agreements, as well as 

information that forms a reasonable 

basis for any financial performance 

representation it elects to make. These 

requirements are subject to the PRA, 

and for which the Commission seeks to 

extend existing clearance. 

Estimated annual hours burden: 

16,750 hours. 

Based on a review of trade 

publications and information from state 

regulatory authorities, staff believes 

that, on average, from year to year, there 

are approximately 2,500 sellers of 

franchises covered by the Rule, with 

perhaps about 10% of that total 

reflecting an equal amount of new and 

departing business entrants.2

Commission staffs burden hour estimate 

reflects the incremental tasks that the 

Rule may impose beyond the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES