27132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Notices 

• Total risk-based ratio: PCA total capital 

divided by risk-weighted assets. 

• Tier 1 growth to asset growth: Annual 

growth of PCA tier 1 capital divided by 

annual growth of total assets. 

• Regulatory capital to internallydetermined capital needs: PCA tier 1 and 

total capital divided by internallydetermined capital needs as determined from 

economic capital models, internal capital 

adequacy assessments processes (ICAAP), or 

similar processes. 

• Qualitative and mitigating capitalization 

factors: Includes considerations such as 

strength of capital planning and ICAAP 

processes, and the strength of financial 

support provided by the parent. 

Asset Quality 

• Non-performing assets to tier 1 capital: 

Nonaccrual loans, loans past due over 90 

days, and other real estate owned divided by 

PCA tier 1 capital. 

• ALLL to loans: Allowance for loan and 

lease losses plus allocated transfer risk 

reserves divided by total loans and leases. 

• Net charge-off rate: Loan and lease losses 

charged to the allowance for loan and lease 

losses (less recoveries) divided by average 

total loans and leases. 

• Earnings coverage of net loan losses: 

Loan and lease losses charged to the 

allowance for loan and lease losses (less 

recoveries) divided by pre-tax, pre-loan loss 

provision earnings. 

• Higher risk loans to tier 1 capital: Sum 

of sub-prime loans, alternative or exotic 

mortgage products, leveraged lending, and 

other high risk lending (e.g., speculative 

construction or commercial real estate 

financing) divided by PCA tier 1 capital. 

• Criticized and classified assets to tier 1 

capital: Assets assigned to regulatory 

categories of Special Mention, Substandard, 

Doubtful, or Loss (and not charged-off) 

divided by PCA tier 1 capital. 

• EAD-weighted average PD: Weighted 

average estimate of the probability of default 

(PD) for an institution’s obligors where the 

weights are the estimated exposures-atdefault (EAD). PD and EAD risk metrics can 

be defined using either the Basel II 

framework or internally defined estimates. 

• EAD-weighted average LGD: Weighted 

average estimate of loss given default (LGD) 

for an institution’s credit exposures where 

the weights are the estimated EADs for each 

exposure. LGD and PD risk metrics can be 

defined using either the Basel II framework 

or internally defined estimates. 

• Qualitative and mitigating asset quality 

factors: Includes considerations such as the 

extent of credit risk mitigation in place; 

underwriting trends; strength of credit risk 

monitoring; and the extent of securitization, 

derivatives, and off-balance sheet financing 

activities that could result in additional 

credit exposure. 

Liquidity and Market Risk Indicators 

• Core deposits to total funding: The sum 

of demand, savings, MMDA, and time 

deposits under $100 thousand divided by 

total funding sources. 

• Net loans to assets: Loans and leases (net 

of the allowance for loan and lease losses) 

divided by total assets. 

• Liquid and marketable assets to shortterm obligations and certain off-balance sheet 

commitments: The sum of cash, balances due 

from depository institutions, marketable 

securities (fair value), federal funds sold, 

securities purchased under agreement to 

resell, and readily marketable loans (e.g., 

securitized mortgage pools) divided by the 

sum of obligations maturing within one year, 

undrawn commercial and industrial loans, 

and letters of credit. 

• Qualitative and mitigating liquidity 

factors: Includes considerations such as the 

extent of back-up lines, pledged assets, the 

strength of contingency and funds 

management practices, and the stability of 

various categories of funding sources. 

• Earnings and capital at risk to fluctuating 

market prices: Quantified measures of 

earnings or capital at risk to shifts in interest 

rates, changes in foreign exchange values, or 

changes in market and commodity prices. 

This would include measures of value-at-risk 

(VaR) on trading book assets. 

• Qualitative and mitigating market risk 

factors: Includes considerations of the 

strength of interest rate risk and market risk 

measurement systems and management 

practices, and the extent of risk mitigation 

(e.g., interest rate hedges) in place. 

Other Market Indicators 

• Subordinated debt spreads: Dealerprovided quotes of interest rate spreads paid 

on subordinated debt issued by insured 

subsidiaries relative to comparable maturity 

treasury obligations. 

• Credit default swap spreads: Dealerprovided quotes of interest rate spreads paid 

by a credit protection buyer to a credit 

protection seller relative to a reference 

obligation issued by an insured institution. 

• Market-based default indicators: 

Estimates of the likelihood of default by an 

insured organization that are based on either 

traded equity or debt prices. 

• Qualitative market indicators or 

mitigating market factors: Includes 

considerations such as agency rating 

outlooks, debt and equity analyst opinions 

and outlooks, the relative level of liquidity of 

any debt and equity issues used to develop 

market indicators defined above, and marketbased indicators of the parent company. 

Risk Measures Pertaining to Stress 

Conditions 

Ability To Withstand Stress Conditions 

• Concentration risk measures: Measures 

of the level of concentrated risk exposures 

and extent to which an insured institution’s 

capital and earnings would be adversely 

affected due to exposures to common risk 

factors such as the condition of a single 

obligor, poor industry sector conditions, poor 

local or regional economic conditions, or 

poor conditions for groups of related obligors 

(e.g., subprime borrowers). 

• Qualitative and mitigating factors 

relating to the ability to withstand stress 

conditions: Includes results of stress tests or 

scenario analyses that measure the extent of 

capital, earnings, or liquidity depletion under 

varying degrees of financial stress such as 

adverse economic, industry, market, and 

liquidity events as well as the 

comprehensiveness of risk identification and 

stress testing analyses, the plausibility of 

stress scenarios considered, and the 

sensitivity of scenario analyses to changes in 

assumptions. 

Loss Severity Indicators 

• Subordinated liabilities to total 

liabilities: The sum of obligations, such as 

subordinated debt, that would have a 

subordinated claim to the institution’s assets 

in the event of failure divided by total 

liabilities. 

• Secured (priority) liabilities to total 

liabilities: The sum of claims, such as trade 

payables and secured borrowings, that would 

have priority claim to the institution’s assets 

in the event of failure divided by total 

liabilities. 

• Foreign assets relative to foreign 

deposits: The sum of assets held in foreign 

units relative to foreign deposits. 

• Liquidation value of assets: Estimated 

value of assets, based largely on historical 

loss rates experienced by the FDIC on various 

asset classes, in the event of liquidation. 

• Qualitative and mitigating factors 

relating to loss severity: Includes 

considerations such as the sufficiency of 

information and systems capabilities relating 

to qualified financial contracts and deposits 

to facilitate quick and cost efficient 

resolution, the extent to which critical 

functions or staff are housed outside the 

insured entity, and prospects for foreign 

deposit ring-fencing in the event of failure. 

By order of the Board of Directors. 

Dated at Washington, DC, this 8th day of 

May, 2007. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9196 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Unmodified Qualified Trust 

Model Certificates and Model Trust 

Documents 

AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics 

(OGE). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Government 

Ethics is publishing this first round 

notice and seeking comment on the 

twelve executive branch OGE model 

certificates and model documents for 

qualified trusts. OGE intends to submit 

these forms for extension of approval 

(up to two years) by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. OGE is 

proposing no changes to these forms at 

this time. As in the past, OGE will notify 

filers of an update to the privacy 

information contained in the existing 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Notices 27133 

forms, and will post a notification 

thereof on its Web site. 

DATES: Written comments by the public 

and the agencies on this proposed 

extension are invited and must be 

received by July 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to OGE on this paperwork notice by any 

of the following methods: 

E-mail: usoge@oge.gov. (Include 

reference to ‘‘Qualified trust model 

certificates and model trust documents 

paperwork comment’’ in the subject line 

of the message). 

FAX: 202–482–9237. 

Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of 

Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 

New York Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20005–3917, Attention: Paul D. 

Ledvina, Records Officer, Information 

Resources Management Division. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ledvina at the Office of Government 

Ethics; telephone: 202–482–9281; TDD: 

202–482–9293; FAX: 202–482–9237; Email: pdledvin@oge.gov. The model 

certificates of independence and 

compliance for qualified trusts are 

codified in appendixes A, B, and C to 

5 CFR part 2634. Copies of the model 

trust documents are available through 

the Forms, Publications & Other Ethics 

Documents section of OGE’s Web site at 

http://www.usoge.gov. Copies of the 

qualified trust model certificates and the 

model trust documents may also be 

obtained, without charge, by contacting 

Mr. Ledvina. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Government Ethics is planning to 

submit, after this first round notice and 

comment period, all twelve qualified 

trust model certificates and model 

documents described below (all of 

which are included under OMB 

paperwork control number 3209–0007) 

for a two-year extension of approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). At that time, 

OGE will publish a second paperwork 

notice in the Federal Register to inform 

the public and the agencies. The current 

paperwork approval, last granted by 

OMB in 2005, for the model certificates 

and model trust documents is scheduled 

to expire at the end of June 2007. OGE 

is proposing no changes to the twelve 

qualified trust certificates and model 

documents at this time. 

In 2003, OGE updated the OGE/ 

GOVT–1 system of records notice 

(covering SF 278 Public Financial 

Disclosure Reports and other nameretrieved ethics program records), 

including the addition of the three new 

routine uses. As a result, the Privacy Act 

Statement on each of the qualified trust 

model certificates and documents, 

which includes paraphrases of the 

routine uses, is affected. OGE has not 

incorporated this update into the 

qualified trust model certificates and 

documents at this time, since a more 

thorough revision of these information 

collections is planned within the next 

two years. Upon distribution of the trust 

model certificates and documents, OGE 

will continue to inform users of the 

update to the Privacy Act Statement. 

OGE will also post a notification thereof 

on its Web site to accompany the model 

certificates and documents. 

OGE is the supervising ethics office 

for the executive branch of the Federal 

Government under the Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978 (Ethics Act). 

Presidential nominees to executive 

branch positions subject to Senate 

confirmation and any other executive 

branch officials may seek OGE approval 

for Ethics Act qualified blind or 

diversified trusts as one means to be 

used to avoid conflicts of interest. 

OGE is the sponsoring agency for the 

model certificates and model trust 

documents for qualified blind and 

diversified trusts of executive branch 

officials set up under section 102(f) of 

the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(f), 

and OGE’s implementing financial 

disclosure regulations at subpart D of 5 

CFR part 2634. The various model 

certificates and model trust documents 

are utilized by OGE and settlors, 

trustees and other fiduciaries in 

establishing and administering these 

qualified trusts. 

There are two categories of 

information collection requirements that 

OGE plans to submit for renewed 

paperwork approval, each with its own 

related reporting model certificates or 

model trust documents which are 

subject to paperwork review and 

approval by OMB. The OGE regulatory 

citations for these two categories, 

together with identification of the forms 

used for their implementation, are as 

follows: 

i. Qualified trust certifications—5 CFR 

2634.401(d)(2), 2634.403(b)(11), 

2634.404(c)(11), 2634.406(a)(3) and (b), 

2634.408, 2634.409 and appendixes A 

and B to part 2634 (the two 

implementing forms, the Certificate of 

Independence and Certificate of 

Compliance, are codified respectively in 

the cited appendixes; see also the 

Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction 

Act notices thereto in appendix C); and 

ii. Qualified trust communications 

and model provisions and agreements—

5 CFR 2634.401(c)(1)(i) and (d)(2), 

2634.403(b), 2634.404(c), 2634.408 and 

2634.409 (the ten implementing forms 

are the: (A) Blind Trust 

Communications (Expedited Procedure 

for Securing Approval of Proposed 

Communications); (B) Model Qualified 

Blind Trust Provisions; (C) Model 

Qualified Diversified Trust Provisions; 

(D) Model Qualified Blind Trust 

Provisions (For Use in the Case of 

Multiple Fiduciaries); (E) Model 

Qualified Blind Trust Provisions (For 

Use in the Case of an Irrevocable PreExisting Trust); (F) Model Qualified 

Diversified Trust Provisions (Hybrid 

Version); (G) Model Qualified 

Diversified Trust Provisions (For Use in 

the Case of Multiple Fiduciaries); (H) 

Model Qualified Diversified Trust 

Provisions (For Use in the Case of an 

Irrevocable Pre-Existing Trust); (I) 

Model Confidentiality Agreement 

Provisions (For Use in the Case of a 

Privately Owned Business); and (J) 

Model Confidentiality Agreement 

Provisions (For Use in the Case of 

Investment Management Activities). As 

noted above, blank copies of each of 

these model documents are posted on 

OGE’s Web site. 

The communications formats and the 

confidentiality agreements (items ii. (A), 

(I) and (J) above), once completed, 

would not be available to the public 

because they contain sensitive, 

confidential information. All the other 

completed model trust certificates and 

model trust documents (except for any 

trust provisions that relate to the 

testamentary disposition of trust assets) 

are publicly available based upon a 

proper Ethics Act request (by filling out 

an OGE Form 201 access form). 

The Office of Government Ethics 

administers the qualified trust program 

for the executive branch. Therefore, the 

estimated burden figures provided 

below represent branchwide 

implementation of the forms. The 

estimated hour burden, which remains 

the same as last indicated by OGE in its 

prior second round paperwork renewal 

notice in 2005 (70 FR 31471–31472 June 

1, 2005), is based on the amount of time 

imposed on a trust administrator or 

private representative. 

i. Trust Certificates: 

A. Certificate of Independence: total 

filers (executive branch): 5; private 

citizen filers (100%): 5; private citizen 

burden hours (20 minutes/certificate): 2. 

B. Certificate of Compliance: total 

filers (executive branch): 10; private 

citizen filers (100%): 10; private citizen 

burden hours (20 minutes/certificate): 3; 

and 

ii. Model Qualified Trust Documents: 

A. Blind Trust Communications: total 

users (executive branch): 5; private 

citizen users (100%): 5; 

communications documents (private 

citizens): 25 (based on an average of five 

communications per user, per year); 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
27134 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Notices 

private citizen burden hours (20 

minutes/communication): 8. 

B. Model Qualified Blind Trust: total 

users (executive branch): 2; private 

citizen users (100%): 2; private citizen 

burden hours (100 hours/model): 200. 

C. Model Qualified Diversified Trust: 

total users (executive branch): 1; private 

citizen users (100%): 1; private citizen 

burden hours (100 hours/model): 100. 

D.–H. Of the five remaining model 

qualified trust documents: total users 

(executive branch): 2; private citizen 

users (100%): 2; private citizen burden 

hours (100 hours/model): 200. 

I.–J. Of the two model confidentiality 

agreements: total users (executive 

branch): 1; private citizen users (100%): 

1; private citizen burden hours (50 

hours/agreement): 50. 

However, the total annual reporting 

hour burden on filers themselves is zero 

and not the 563 hours estimated above 

because OGE’s estimating methodology 

reflects the fact that all respondents hire 

private trust administrators or other 

private representatives to set up and 

maintain the qualified blind and 

diversified trusts. Respondents 

themselves, typically incoming private 

citizen Presidential nominees, therefore 

incur no hour burden. The estimated 

total annual cost burden to respondents 

resulting from the collection of 

information is $1,000,000. Those who 

use the model documents for guidance 

are private trust administrators or other 

private representatives hired to set up 

and maintain the qualified blind and 

diversified trusts of executive branch 

officials who seek to establish qualified 

trusts. The cost burden figure is based 

primarily on OGE’s knowledge of the 

typical trust administrator fee structure 

(an average of 1 percent of total assets) 

and OGE’s experience with 

administration of the qualified trust 

program. The $1,000,000 annual cost 

figure is based on OGE’s estimate of an 

average of five active trusts anticipated 

to be under administration for each of 

the next two years with combined total 

assets of $100,000,000. However, OGE 

notes that the $1,000,000 figure is a cost 

estimate for the overall administration 

of the trusts, only a portion of which 

relates to information collection and 

reporting. For want of a precise way to 

break out the costs directly associated 

with information collection, OGE is 

continuing to report to OMB the full 

$1,000,000 estimate for paperwork 

clearance purposes. 

Public comment is invited on each 

aspect of the model qualified trust 

certificates and model trust documents, 

and underlying regulatory provisions, as 

set forth in this notice, including 

specific views on the need for and 

practical utility of this set of collections 

of information, the accuracy of OGE’s 

burden estimate, the potential for 

enhancement of quality, utility and 

clarity of the information collected, and 

the minimization of burden (including 

the use of information technology). 

Comments received in response to 

this notice will be summarized for, and 

may be included with, the OGE request 

for extension of the OMB paperwork 

approval for the set of the various 

existing qualified trust model 

certificates, the model communications 

package, and the model trust 

documents. The comments will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Approved: May 3, 2007. 

Robert I. Cusick, 

Director, Office of Government Ethics. 

[FR Doc. E7–9162 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6345–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Toxicology Program (NTP); 

Liaison and Scientific Review Office; 

Meeting of the NTP Board of Scientific 

Counselors 

AGENCY: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences 

(NIEHS), National Institutes of Health. 

ACTION: Meeting announcement and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92–

463, notice is hereby given of a meeting 

of the NTP Board of Scientific 

Counselors (NTP BSC). The NTP BSC is 

composed of scientists from the public 

and private sectors and provides 

primary scientific oversight to the NTP 

Director and evaluates the scientific 

merit of the NTP’s intramural and 

collaborative programs. 

DATES: The NTP BSC meeting will be 

held on June 22, 2007. The deadlines for 

submission of written comments and for 

pre-registration for the meeting are June 

8 and June 15, 2007, respectively. 

Persons needing special assistance, such 

as sign language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation in order to 

attend, should contact 919–541–2475 

(voice), 919–541–4644 TTY (text 

telephone), through the Federal TTY 

Relay System at 800–877–8339, or by email to niehsoeeo@niehs.nih.gov. 

Requests should be made at least 7 days 

in advance of the event. 

ADDRESSES: The NTP BSC meeting will 

be held in the Rodbell Auditorium, Rall 

Building at the NIEHS, 111 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709. Public comments and 

any other correspondence should be 

submitted to Dr. Barbara Shane, 

Executive Secretary for the NTP BSC 

(NTP Liaison and Scientific Review 

Office, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD A3–

01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; 

fax: 919–541–0295; or e-mail: 

shane@niehs.nih.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Barbara Shane (telephone: 919–541–

4253 or e-mail: shane@niehs.nih.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preliminary Agenda Topics and 

Availability of Meeting Materials 

Preliminary agenda topics include: 

• Update of NTP activities. 

• Implementation of workshop and 

NTP retreat recommendations. 

• Review of NTP contracts. 

• NTP testing nominations. 

• Five-year plan for the NTP 

Interagency Center for the Evaluation of 

Alternative Toxicological Methods 

(NICEATM)—Interagency Coordinating 

Committee on the Validation of 

Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). 

A copy of the preliminary agenda, 

committee roster, and any additional 

information, when available, will be 

posted on the NTP Web site (http:// 

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/165) or may be 

requested in hardcopy from the 

Executive Secretary for the NTP BSC 

(see ADDRESSES above). Following the 

meeting, summary minutes will be 

prepared and made available on the 

NTP Web site. 

Attendance and Registration 

The meeting is scheduled for June 22, 

2007, from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment 

and is open to the public with 

attendance limited only by the space 

available. Individuals who plan to 

attend are encouraged to register online 

at the NTP Web site by June 15, 2007 

to facilitate planning for the meeting. 

Please note that a photo ID is required 

to access the NIEHS campus. The NTP 

is making plans to videocast the meeting 

through the Internet at http:// 

www.niehs.nih.gov/external/video.htm. 

Request for Comments 

Time is allotted during the meeting 

for the public to present comments to 

the NTP BSC on the agenda topics. Each 

organization is allowed one time slot 

per agenda topic. At least 7 minutes will 

be allotted to each speaker, and if time 

permits, may be extended to 10 minutes 

at the discretion of the NTP BSC chair. 

Registration for oral comments will also 

be available on-site, although time 

allowed for presentation by on-site 

registrants may be less than that for preregistered speakers and will be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES