Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Notices 61449 

Background 

On August 10, 2005, the President 

signed into law the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

(Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144). Section 

1914 of SAFETEA–LU mandates the 

establishment of the Motorcyclist 

Advisory Council as follows: ‘‘The 

Secretary, acting through the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway 

Administration, in consultation with the 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the 

Senate, shall appoint a Motorcyclist 

Advisory Council to coordinate with 

and advise the Administrator on 

infrastructure issues of concern to 

motorcyclists, including— 

(1) Barrier design; 

(2) Road design, construction, and 

maintenance practices; and 

(3) The architecture and 

implementation of intelligent 

transportation system technologies.’’ 

In addition, section 1914 specifies the 

membership of the council: ‘‘The 

Council shall consist of not more than 

10 members of the motorcycling 

community with professional expertise 

in national motorcyclist safety 

advocacy, including— 

(1) At least— 

(A) One member recommended by a 

national motorcyclist association; 

(B) One member recommended by a 

national motorcycle riders foundation; 

(C) One representative of the National 

Association of State Motorcycle Safety 

Administrators; 

(D) Two members of State 

motorcyclists’ organizations; 

(E) One member recommended by a 

national organization that represents the 

builders of highway infrastructure; 

(F) One member recommended by a 

national association that represents the 

traffic safety systems industry; and 

(G) One member of a national safety 

organization; and 

(2) At least one, and not more than 

two, motorcyclists who are traffic 

system design engineers or State 

transportation department officials.’’ 

To carry out this requirement, the 

FHWA published a notice of intent to 

form an advisory committee in the 

Federal Register on December 23, 2005 

(70 FR 76353). This notice, consistent 

with the requirements of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 

announced the establishment of the 

Council and invited comments and 

nominations for membership. The 

FHWA announced the ten members 

selected to the Council in the Federal 

Register on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 

58903). An electronic copy of this 

document and the previous Federal 

Register notices associated with the 

MAC–FHWA can be downloaded 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at: http://www.regulations.gov and the 

Office of the Federal Register’s home 

page at: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register. 

This notice also serves to identify a 

change in the MAC–FHWA membership 

due to a change in the relationship 

between Mr. Steven Zimmer, one of the 

original members of the MAC–FHWA, 

and ABATE of Ohio, making him 

ineligible for the position for which he 

was nominated. Mr. James D. ‘‘Doc’’ 

Reichenbach II, from ABATE of Florida, 

will replace Mr. Zimmer on the Council. 

The FHWA anticipates that the MAC– 

FHWA will meet at least once a year, 

with meetings held in the Washington, 

DC, metropolitan area, and the FHWA 

will publish notices in the Federal 

Register to announce the times, dates, 

and locations of these meetings. 

Meetings of the Council are open to the 

public, and time will be provided in 

each meeting’s schedule for comments 

by members of the public. Attendance 

will necessarily be limited by the size of 

the meeting room. Members of the 

public may present oral or written 

comments at the meeting or may present 

written materials by providing copies to 

Ms. Fran Bents, Westat, 1650 Research 

Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850–3195, 

(240) 314–7557, 10 days prior to the 

meeting. 

The agenda topics for the meetings 

will include a discussion of the 

following issues: (1) Barrier design; (2) 

road design, construction, and 

maintenance practices; and (3) the 

architecture and implementation of 

intelligent transportation system 

technologies. 

Conclusion 

The fifth meeting of the Motorcyclist 

Advisory Council to the Federal 

Highway Administration will be held on 

November 13, 2008, at the Crystal City 

Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, VA 22202 from 9 a.m. until 

5 p.m. 

Authority: Section 1914 of Pub. L. 109–59; 

Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App. II § 1. 

Issued on: October 09, 2008. 

Thomas J. Madison, Jr., 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–24606 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Funding Availability and 

Solicitation of Applications for the 

SAFETEA–LU Magnetic Levitation 

Project Selection 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of funding availability; 

solicitation for applications. 

SUMMARY: Under this Notice, the FRA 

announces that $45 million authorized 

by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) for 

grants to existing magnetic levitation 

(maglev) projects located east of the 

Mississippi River has been appropriated 

and that project proponents (States or 

State designated authorities) for the 

three eligible projects may submit 

applications for grants to fund such 

projects. The three eligible projects are 

the Pittsburgh project, the BaltimoreWashington project, and the AtlantaChattanooga project. Funds awarded 

under this section can be used for 

preconstruction planning activities and 

capital costs of the fixed guideway 

infrastructure of a maglev project. This 

Notice of Funding Availability does not 

apply to the $45 million appropriated 

specifically for the Nevada Department 

of Transportation to fund the existing 

proposed maglev project between Las 

Vegas and Primm, Nevada (see section 

102 of the SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110– 

244 (June 6, 2008)). 

DATES: To be considered, applications 

must be received by February 13, 2009. 

FRA will begin accepting grant 

applications on Monday, October 20, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Applications must be 

submitted electronically to http:// 

www.grants.gov (‘‘Grants.Gov’’). 

Grants.Gov allows organizations 

electronically to find and apply for 

competitive grant opportunities from all 

Federal grant-making agencies. An 

eligible applicant wishing to submit an 

application pursuant to this notice 

should immediately initiate the process 

of registering with Grants.Gov at 

http://www.grants.gov. To confirm 

successful registration on Grants.Gov 

send an e-mail to paxrail@dot.gov. 

For application materials that an 

applicant is unable to submit via 

Grants.Gov (such as oversized 

engineering drawings), applicants may 

submit an original and two (2) copies to 

the Federal Railroad Administration at 
61450 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Notices 

1See the Joint Explanatory Statement of the 

House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, and the Senate Committees on 

Environment and Public Works, on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs, and on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, on the SAFETEA–LU 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008 at 5 (April 30, 

2008). 

the following address: Federal Railroad 

Administration, Attention: Wendy 

Messenger, Office of Railroad 

Development (RDV–13), Mail Stop #20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Due to delays caused by enhanced 

screening of mail delivered via the U.S. 

Postal Service, applicants are 

encouraged to use other means to assure 

timely receipt of materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wendy Messenger, Office of Railroad 

Development (RDV–13), Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Mail Stop #20, 

Washington, DC 20590. Phone: (202) 

493–6396; Fax: (202) 493–6330, or 

Robert Carpenter, Grants Officer, Office 

of Acquisition and Grants Services 

(RAD–30), Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Phone: (202) 493–6153; Fax: (202) 493– 

6171. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Section 102 of the SAFETEA–LU 

Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 110– 

244, June 6, 2008) (the 2008 Act), 

amended SAFETEA–LU, which 

authorized, but did not appropriate, $90 

million for maglev projects, 50 percent 

of which would go to the maglev project 

between Las Vegas and Primm, NV, and 

50 percent of which would go to an 

undetermined maglev project located 

east of the Mississippi River. The 2008 

Act made the funding available and 

modified and clarified the language by 

dividing the funding equally between 

fiscal years 2008 and 2009, adding a 20 

percent non-Federal match requirement, 

and allowing the ‘‘east of the 

Mississippi River’’ funding to 

potentially be distributed among two or 

more projects. 

In the Joint Explanatory Statement of 

the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee and the Senate 

Environmental and Public Works, 

Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, and 

Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Committees accompanying the 2008 Act 

(the Joint Committee Statement), 

Congress explained that by changing the 

language to allow FRA discretion to 

award funds to ‘‘projects’’ located east 

of the Mississippi River, ‘‘the intent is 

to limit the eligible projects to three 

existing projects east of the Mississippi 

River: Pittsburgh, BaltimoreWashington, and AtlantaChattanooga.’’ 1 Based upon that clear 

Congressional direction, the solicitation 

for applications under this NOFA is 

limited to those three projects. Through 

the SAFETEA–LU maglev project 

selection (Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number 20.312), 

FRA will determine which of the three 

eligible projects east of the Mississippi 

River will receive these funds and has 

the discretion to award funds to one or 

more of those three projects. 

Background 

In the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105–178 (July 

22, 1998)) (TEA–21), Congress 

established the Maglev Deployment 

Program, the purpose of which was to 

encourage the development and 

construction of an operating 

transportation system employing 

magnetic levitation capable of safe use 

by the public at a speed in excess of 240 

miles per hour. TEA–21 provided $55 

million for fiscal years 1999 through 

2001 for maglev transportation systems. 

Congress directed FRA to establish 

project selection criteria, to solicit 

applications for funding, to select one or 

more projects to receive financial 

assistance for preconstruction planning 

activities, and, after completion of such 

activities, to select one of the projects to 

receive financial assistance for final 

design, engineering, and construction 

activities. 

FRA received eleven applications and 

selected seven projects to receive 

funding. After each of the seven projects 

completed preliminary environmental 

documentation and FRA issued a 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement and record of decision, in 

January 2000 two projects were selected 

for additional funding and further 

study. The first project was a 54-mile 

system through Pittsburgh, PA, and the 

second was a 39-mile system between 

Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC. 

Extensive environmental and 

preliminary engineering work has been 

completed for both of these projects. 

Proponents of two of the seven projects 

not selected in January 2000 continued 

to study maglev or high-speed ground 

transportation options, including 

maglev, with funding from other 

sources. These two projects are a 40 

mile segment between Las Vegas and 

Primm, NV that is envisioned as part of 

a system eventually extending to 

Anaheim, CA, and a 110 mile route 

between Atlanta, GA and Chattanooga, 

TN. 

In TEA–21, Congress also authorized, 

but did not appropriate, $950 million in 

Federal funds for final design, 

engineering and construction of the 

most promising projects. TEA–21 

expired and Congress never 

appropriated those funds. In SAFETEA– 

LU, Congress authorized, but once again 

did not appropriate, $90 million for a 

new maglev deployment program. In the 

2008 Act, Congress made those funds 

available. As noted above, half of those 

funds are allocated to the Las Vegas, NV 

project. The other half of those funds 

will be distributed to one or more 

projects based upon a selection process. 

By this NOFA, FRA is announcing the 

initiation of that selection process and 

notifying the project proponents for the 

three eligible projects of the selection 

criteria. 

Authority: The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (Pub. L. 109–59, August 10, 2005), 

and the SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Act (Pub. L. 110–244, June 6, 2008). 

Funding: The 2008 Act provides 

$90,000,000 for maglev and directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to: (1) 

Allocate 50 percent to the Nevada 

Department of Transportation for the 

Las Vegas, NV maglev project; and (2) 

allocate 50 percent, in the form of one 

or more grant agreements covering up to 

80 percent of the project costs, to one or 

more of three eligible maglev projects 

east of the Mississippi River. The 

Federal share of a selected project or 

projects shall be 80 percent; the 

grantee(s) is (are) responsible for 

providing the other 20 percent. Only 

expenditures made after the date of 

enactment of the SAFETEA–LU 

Technical Corrections Act, provided 

they are otherwise eligible and covered 

by an approved scope of work, will be 

considered potentially eligible as the 

non-Federal share. The funding 

provided under these grants will be 

made available to the grantee(s) on a 

reimbursement basis. If FRA selects 

more than one project, FRA may choose 

to apportion the available funding as the 

agency determines in its discretion. 

Schedule for Maglev Grant Program: 

FRA will begin accepting grant 

applications on October 20, 2008 and 

will continue accepting applications 

until February 13, 2009. Applications 

submitted before October 20, 2008 will 

be disregarded. FRA may request that an 

applicant submit a revised application 

reflecting a refined scope of work and 

budget. FRA anticipates making the 

award(s) made pursuant to this notice 

during FY 2009. 

Project Eligibility: Section 1307 of 

SAFETEA–LU establishes three project 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Notices 61451 

2Congress titled section 1307 ‘‘Deployment of 

Magnetic Levitation Transportation Projects’’ and 

the funding provided through section 1101(a)(18) of 

SAFETEA–LU, as amended by the 2008 Act is made 

available for the ‘‘deployment of magnetic levitation 

projects.’’ FRA interprets the statute as a whole as 

evidencing a Congressional intent that the Federal 

funds be used to directly advance and result in the 

construction of a maglev project. Thus, in order to 

be eligible for funding under this program, an 

application must include evidence that an operating 

transportation facility that provides a revenue 

producing service will be constructed. 

eligibility standards. To be eligible to 

receive financial assistance under this 

program, a project must: (1) Involve a 

segment or segments of a high-speed 

ground transportation corridor; (2) 

result in an operating transportation 

facility that provides a revenue 

producing service; 2 and (3) be approved 

by the FRA Administrator based on an 

application submitted to the 

Administrator by a State or authority 

designated by one or more States. The 

first two criteria are prerequisites to 

FRA evaluating an application and must 

be addressed in the cover letter with 

supporting documentation in the 

application package. If those two criteria 

are not met to FRA’s satisfaction, the 

project is not eligible for funding. 

If the project proponents propose 

service in more than one State, a single 

State or designated State authority 

should apply on behalf of all 

participating States. FRA encourages 

States to submit applications through 

their respective Departments of 

Transportation, which have extensive 

experience in implementing Federally 

funded transportation programs. 

Eligible Projects: As explained in the 

Joint Committee Statement, only the 

three existing maglev projects located 

east of the Mississippi River are eligible. 

These are the Pittsburgh, BaltimoreWashington, and Atlanta-Chattanooga 

projects. 

Selection Criteria: Provided the 

statutory eligibility criteria have been 

met, FRA will consider the following 

selection factors in evaluating 

applications for grants under this 

program: 

1. Whether the project demonstrates 

the ability to address at least one or 

more serious technological or financial/ 

economic problem(s) that challenge the 

feasibility of widespread adaptation of 

maglev systems. Examples might 

include methods to make maglev 

systems more energy efficient or ways to 

mitigate initial construction costs (e.g., 

by reducing vehicle weight or 

demonstrating new, lower cost ways to 

construct maglev guideway). 

2. Whether funds awarded under this 

section will result in investments that 

are beneficial not only to the maglev 

project, but also to other current or nearterm transportation projects. Examples 

could include the preservation of rightsof-way, and/or the achievement of one 

or more planning goals. Applicants 

should keep in mind, however, that 

Federal funds may not be used for 

station construction costs. 

3. Whether the project demonstrates 

the potential for a public-private 

partnership for the corridor in which 

the maglev project is involved, and/or 

for the project independently. Any 

corridor exhibiting partnership potential 

must meet at least the following two 

conditions: 

(a) Private enterprise entities must be 

able to operate the corridor—once built 

and paid for—as a complete, selfsustaining operation. That is, the total 

fully allocated operating expenses of the 

maglev service are projected to be offset 

by revenues attributable to the service; 

and 

(b) The total societal benefits of a 

maglev corridor must equal or exceed its 

total societal costs. 

4. The extent of the demonstrated 

financial commitment to the 

construction of the proposed project 

from both non-Federal public sources 

and private sources, including any 

financial contributions or commitment 

the applicant has secured from private 

entities that are expected to benefit from 

the project. If applicable, also include 

the extent to which the State or private 

entities exceed the required 20 percent 

match. 

5. Whether the project demonstrates 

the ability to meet all applicable Federal 

and State environmental statutes and 

regulations. 

6. The degree to which the project 

will demonstrate the variety of maglev 

operating conditions which are to be 

expected in the United States. For 

example, these conditions might 

include a variety of at-grade, elevated 

and depressed guideway structures, 

extreme temperatures, and intermodal 

connections at terminals. 

7. Whether the project demonstrates 

the ability to meet a top speed of at least 

240 miles per hour (MPH). FRA will 

also consider favorably the ability to 

meet higher speeds as well as the 

duration that speeds of at least 240 MPH 

can be attained. 

Requirements for Grant Applications: 

All applications must be submitted 

through Grants.gov, which is the 

Federal grants portal. The following 

points describe the minimum content 

which will be required in grant 

applications. These requirements may 

be satisfied through a narrative 

statement submitted by the applicant, 

supported by spreadsheet documents, 

tables, drawings, and other materials, as 

appropriate. Each grant application will: 

1. Designate a point of contact for the 

applicant and provide their name and 

contact information, including phone 

number, mailing address and e-mail 

address. The point of contact must be an 

employee of the applicant. 

2. Include a detailed project 

description, including an explanation of 

why the project is an eligible project 

and a thorough discussion of how the 

project meets all of the selection criteria. 

3. Describe the market to be served by 

the proposed new service, and the 

existing transportation facilities and 

service afforded by other public and 

private modes of transportation in the 

market area. In addition, the application 

should describe the operating changes 

to the target market that are anticipated 

to result from the introduction of 

maglev services, as well as assess the 

major risks or obstacles to maglev’s 

successful deployment and operation. 

4. Provide a detailed summary of all 

work done to date, including any 

preliminary engineering work, the 

project’s previous accomplishments and 

funding history, and a chronology of key 

documents produced and funding 

events (e.g., grants and contracts). 

5. Describe progress toward 

completing any environmental 

documentation or clearance required for 

the proposed project under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, section 4(f) of 

the DOT Act, the Clean Water Act, or 

other applicable Federal or State laws. 

Applicants should keep in mind, 

however, that FRA will not give 

additional weight to projects that have 

completed more environmental work. 

Instead, as explained in the selection 

criteria, FRA will consider favorably 

those projects that demonstrate an 

ability to ultimately fulfill all applicable 

Federal and State environmental 

requirements. 

6. Include a complete Standard Form 

424, ‘‘Application for Federal 

Assistance,’’ a signed Standard Form 

424D, ‘‘Assurances—Construction 

Programs,’’ signed copies of FRA’s 

Additional Assurances and 

Certifications, available at http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/admin/

assurancesandcertifications.pdf, and the 

most recent audit performed in 

compliance with OMB Circular A–133. 

Information on Circular A–133 can be 

found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/circulars/a133/a133.html. If the 

scope of work includes nonconstruction activities, applications 

must also include a signed Standard 

Form 424B, ‘‘Assurances—NonConstruction Programs.’’ 
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 

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 http:// 

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