Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66977

Ballots invalid under this subpart shall

not be counted.

§ 1209.306 Referendum report.

Except as otherwise directed, the

referendum agent shall prepare and

submit to the Administrator a report on

results of the referendum, the manner in

which it was conducted, the extent and

kind of public notice given, and other

information pertinent to analysis of the

referendum and its results.

§ 1209.307 Confidential information.

The ballots and other information or

reports that reveal, or tend to reveal, the

identity or vote of any person covered

under the Act shall be held confidential

and shall not be disclosed.

Dated: December 11, 1997.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Associate Deputy Administrator, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–32812 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150–AF73

Codes and Standards; IEEE National

Consensus Standard, Withdrawal

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is withdrawing a direct

final rule that would have amended

Commission’s regulations to incorporate

by reference the most recent published

version of IEEE Std. 603–1991, a

national consensus standard for power,

instrumentation, and control portions of

safety systems in nuclear power plants.

The NRC is taking this action because it

has received significant adverse

comments in response to an identical

proposed rule which was concurrently

published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Satish K. Aggarwal, Senior Program

Manager, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone (301) 415–6005, Fax (301)

415–5074 (e-mail: SKA@NRC.GOV).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 17, 1997 (62 FR 53933), the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

published in the Federal Register a

direct final rule amending its

regulations at 10 CFR 50.55a(h) to

incorporate by reference the most

recently published version of a national

consensus standard. The direct final

rule was to become effective on January

1, 1998. The NRC also concurrently

published an identical proposed rule on

October 17, 1997 (62 FR 53975). In these

documents, the NRC indicated that if it

received significant adverse comments

in response to this action, the NRC

would withdraw the direct final rule

and would consider the comments

received as in response to the proposed

rule and address these comments in a

subsequent final rule. The NRC has

received significant adverse comments

on the direct final rule. Therefore, the

Commission is withdrawing the October

17, 1997, direct final rule. The public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule issued in either

a notice of final rulemaking or in a

notice of withdrawal of the proposed

rule.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of December, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–33424 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

12 CFR Part 960

[No. 97–N–10]

Questions and Answers Regarding The

Affordable Housing Program

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Staff interpretation of affordable

housing regulations.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is publishing

Questions and Answers regarding the

Affordable Housing Program (AHP). The

Questions and Answers have been

prepared by staff of the Finance Board

in response to questions about changes

in the Finance Board’s regulation

governing the AHP that will go into

effect on January 1, 1998. The Questions

and Answers constitute informal staff

guidance for Finance Board personnel,

the Federal Home Loan Banks (Bank),

Bank members, and program

participants. The Answers are intended

to be interpretive of the Finance Board’s

regulation governing the AHP, and are

not statements of agency policy. The

Questions and Answers have not been

considered or approved by the Board of

Directors of the Finance Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Tucker, Deputy Director,

Compliance Assistance Division, (202)

408–2848, or Janet M. Fronckowiak,

Program Analyst, Compliance

Assistance Division, (202) 408–2575, or

Diane E. Dorius, Associate Director,

Program Development Division, (202)

408–2576, Office of Policy, Federal

Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

4, 1997, the Finance Board published a

final rule amending its existing

regulation governing the AHP. See 62

FR 41812 (Aug. 4, 1997). The final rule

will become effective on January 1,

1998. In the months following

publication of the final rule, the Finance

Board has provided training to the staffs

of the Banks to assist them in making a

smooth transition to operation under the

amended AHP regulation. A number of

questions of regulatory interpretation

were raised by Bank staff as a result of

the Finance Board’s training sessions.

The staff of the Finance Board has

prepared answers to the most frequently

asked questions. The Questions and

Answers constitute informal

interpretive guidance for Finance Board

personnel, the Banks, Bank members,

and program participants. The Answers

are intended to be interpretative of the

AHP regulation, not statements of

agency policy, and they have not been

considered or approved by the Board of

Directors of the Finance Board.

The Questions and Answers are

grouped by the provision of the AHP

regulation that they discuss and are

presented in the same order as the

regulatory provisions. The text of the

Questions and Answers follows:

Text of the Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers Regarding the

AHP

Definitions (§ 960.1)

Low- and Moderate-Income and Very

Low-Income Household Eligibility for

Current Occupants:

Q1. When a rental project involves

both purchase and rehabilitation, which

point in time should be used for

purposes of determining household

eligibility?

A1. The regulation permits a choice of

determining income eligibility either at

the time of completion of the purchase

or at the time of completion of the

rehabilitation.

Q2. In the case of projects involving

the purchase or rehabilitation of rental

housing with current occupants, can an

occupying household that is a very lowincome or a low- or moderate-income

household at the time the AHP

application is submitted to the Bank be

deemed to be a very low-income or a

low- or moderate-income household at
66978 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the time the purchase or rehabilitation

of the housing is completed?

A2. Yes.

Median Income for the Area:

Q3. How can median income

standards published by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) be

available for all projects in a Bank’s

District if USDA publishes median

income standards only for rural areas?

A3. USDA income standards would

be applicable only to the rural areas

identified in the USDA standards. A

Bank selecting this median income

standard would have to select another

income standard to be used in non-rural

areas.

Sponsor:

Q4. Does the definition of ‘‘sponsor’’

include a not-for-profit organization that

owns a for-profit entity that is the

general partner in the partnership that

owns an AHP-eligible rental project?

A4. Yes.

Advisory Councils (§ 960.4)

Terms (section 960.4(d)):

Q1. Is each Advisory Council member

required to be appointed for a three-year

term?

A1. Yes.

Q2. Do terms already served or which

currently are being served by Advisory

Council members who are in office on

January 1, 1998, count toward the limit

of three consecutive terms?

A2. No. Only terms that begin on or

after January 1, 1998, the effective date

of the revised AHP regulation, count

toward the limit of three consecutive

terms.

Minimum Eligibility Standards for AHP

Projects (§ 960.5)

Experienced Counseling Organization

(section 960.5(a)(2)(ii)):

Q1. What is a homebuyer or

homeowner counseling program

provided by, or based on one provided

by, an organization recognized as

experienced in homebuyer or

homeowner counseling?

A1. A program such as one that is

provided by a counseling organization

approved by HUD or a state or local

agency would qualify. Programs that are

based on counseling guides such as

those provided by the American

Homeowners Education and Counseling

Institute also would meet this

requirement.

Homeownership Set-Aside Incentives

(section 960.5(a)(6)):

Q2. What are financial or other

incentives to a household that are

required of a member that provides

mortgage financing?

A2. A Bank may determine what it

considers to be financial or other

incentives. For example, financial

incentives could include lower (or

foregone) origination fees, other

discounted fees, reduced interest rates,

lower downpayment requirements, or

reductions in other closing costs. Two

examples of other non-financial

incentives are using underwriting

standards that are more flexible than the

member’s usual practice, and making

loans with longer terms than the

member usually makes.

Counseling Costs (§ 960.5(a)(7)):

Q3. Under what circumstances can

counseling costs be paid by AHP

subsidies?

A3. For the competitive application

program, counseling costs may be paid

with AHP subsidies if the costs are

incurred in connection with counseling

of homebuyers who actually purchase

an AHP-assisted unit and the cost of the

counseling has not been covered by

another funding source, including the

member.

For the homeownership set-aside

program, counseling costs may be paid

with AHP subsidies if the costs are

incurred in connection with counseling

of homebuyers who actually purchase

an AHP-assisted unit; the cost of the

counseling has not been covered by

another funding source, including the

member; and the AHP subsidies are

used to pay only for the amount of such

reasonable and customary costs that

exceed the highest amount the member

has spent annually on homebuyer

counseling costs within the preceding

three years. A member may certify to the

amount it spent, including in-house

costs, over the preceding three years. If

a member is not covering the cost of

counseling and has not paid for

counseling costs in the previous three

years, AHP subsidies may be used to

pay for reasonable and customary

counseling costs incurred in connection

with counseling of homebuyers who

actually purchase an AHP-assisted unit.

Direct Subsidy Processing Fees

(§ 960.5(b)(4)(iii)):

Q4. Does the prohibition on using

AHP funds to pay for direct subsidy

processing fees cover fees for costs

incurred by a member in order to pass

on the subsidy, such as legal and

underwriting costs?

A4. Yes.

Member Subsidy Limits

(§ 960.5(b)(10)):

Q5. A Bank may establish certain

eligibility requirements for its AHP.

May the limitation on the amount of

AHP subsidy available per member be

based on a percentage of a member’s

assets or a percentage of the total

available AHP funds?

A5. District eligibility requirements

must apply equally to all members. A

limitation based on a percentage of a

member’s assets would result in larger

members being eligible to compete for

more AHP funds than smaller members;

therefore, such a limitation would not

be permitted. However, since limiting

each member to no more than a certain

percentage of total available AHP funds

would apply equally to each member,

such a limitation would be permitted.

Procedure for Approval of AHP

Applications for Funding (§ 960.6)

Scheduled Funding Periods

(§ 960.6(b)(1)):

Q1. If a Bank schedules one funding

period per year, but is unable to allocate

its entire annual AHP contribution in

that period, may the Bank hold a second

funding period to allocate the remaining

subsidies, even if the second funding

period does not have a comparable

amount of funds?

A1. Yes. The concept of allocating

comparable amounts in each funding

period is based on the premise that a

Bank schedules more than one funding

period a year. If a Bank plans one

funding period and an insufficient

number of qualifying applications are

approved in that period, a Bank may

hold a second funding period to allocate

the unused subsidies and that period

does not have to be comparable in

amount to the first period.

Nominal Price (§ 960.6(b)(4)(iv)(A)):

Q2. Regarding the conveyance of

government-owned or other properties

for a ‘‘nominal’’ price, what is a

‘‘nominal’’ price?

A2. A small, negligible amount, most

often one dollar, is a nominal price.

Modest expenses related to the

conveyance of the property may also be

paid.

Not-for-profit Organization/

Government Entity Sponsor Scoring

Criterion (§ 960.6(b)(4)(iv)(B)):

Q3. Does the definition of ‘‘sponsor’’

in § 960.1 apply to the not-for-profit

organization/government entity sponsor

scoring criterion such that a not-forprofit or government entity sponsor of a

rental project must have an ownership

interest in the project in order for the

project to get any points under that

criterion?

A3. Yes.

First District Priority

(§ 960.6(b)(4)(iv)(F)):

Q4. If a Bank chooses more than one

criterion for which an AHP application

may receive points under the First

District Priority scoring category, how

are points to be allocated among those

criteria?
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66979

A4. If a Bank permits applications to

receive points for meeting more than

one criterion under the First District

Priority scoring category, the Bank must

split the total number of points for the

First District Priority among those

criteria. The sum of the points allocated

to each of the criteria must equal the

total number of points allocated to the

First District Priority. Each application

must be scored according to the extent

to which it meets each of the criteria.

An application cannot receive more

than the total number of points

allocated to a particular criterion if the

application meets that criterion. If an

application meets all the criteria under

the First District Priority, the

application cannot receive more than

the total number of points allocated to

the First District Priority.

Subsidy-Per-Unit

(§ 960.6(b)(4)(iv)(H)):

Q5. Is subsidy-per-unit based on AHPtargeted units only?

A5. Yes. The project is scored based

on the extent to which the project

proposes to use the least amount of AHP

subsidy per AHP-targeted unit. AHPtargeted units are any units that will be

purchased by, or reserved for occupancy

by and affordable for, households with

incomes of 80 percent or less of area

median income.

Funding Alternates (§ 960.6(b)(5)(i)):

Q6. If sufficient AHP funds are

recovered or repaid from previously

committed AHP awards, must they be

used to fund projects approved as

alternates in a previous funding period?

A6. No. Recovered and repaid AHP

subsidies must be returned to a Bank’s

AHP fund. A Bank may, but is not

required to, fund alternate projects from

recovered or repaid AHP funds.

Board of Directors Approval

(§ 960.6(b)(5)(ii)):

Q7. May responsibility to approve or

disapprove AHP applications be

delegated by the board of directors of a

Bank to a committee of the board?

A7. Yes. Such delegation should be

done on an annual basis.

Modification of AHP Applications Prior

to Project Completion (§ 960.7)

Material Change (§ 960.7(a)):

Q1. For purposes of modifications to

AHP applications prior to project

completion, what constitutes a change

in a project that ‘‘materially’’ affects the

facts under which the project’s

application was originally scored and

approved for AHP funding?

A1. A change that materially affects

the facts under which an AHP

application was originally scored and

approved is any change that has the

potential for rendering the project

ineligible or for changing the score that

the project received in the funding

period in which it was originally scored,

had the changed facts been operative at

that time. Examples include changes in

the level of income targeting or the

number of targeted units in a project.

Procedures for Funding (§ 960.8)

Direct Subsidy Changes

(§ 960.8(c)(3)(i)):

Q1. When a Bank has approved a

direct subsidy for an interest rate or

principal write-down, is the Bank

required to reduce the amount of the

direct subsidy when interest rates

decrease?

A1. Yes. The Bank must reduce the

amount of AHP subsidy when interest

rates have decreased from the time of

the approval of the AHP application to

the time of funding. However, the Bank

does have the discretion to process a

project modification under § 960.7 to

cover additional amounts of subsidy

required due to increased project costs

or the loss or reduction of other funding

sources. The modification could be

approved by the Bank’s staff, rather than

the Bank’s board of directors, if the

amount of AHP subsidy required does

not exceed the amount of the originally

approved subsidy.

Modification of AHP Applications After

Project Completion (§ 960.9)

Material Change (§ 960.9):

Q1. For purposes of modifications to

AHP applications after project

completion, what constitutes a change

in a project that ‘‘materially’’ affects the

facts under which the project’s

application was originally scored and

approved for AHP funding?

A1. A change that materially affects

the facts under which an AHP

application was originally scored and

approved is any change that has the

potential for rendering the project

ineligible or for changing the score that

the project received in the funding

period in which it was originally scored,

had the changed facts been operative at

that time. Examples include changes in

the level of income targeting or the

number of targeted units in a project.

Financial Distress (§ 960.9(a)):

Q2. May a completed project qualify

for a modification if it is at risk of falling

into financial distress?

A2. Yes. A project must provide

sufficient information for the Bank to

determine that it either is in financial

distress or is at substantial risk of falling

into financial distress. This section is

intended to provide flexibility to modify

the commitments made in the approved

AHP application if those modifications

will help to avert the potential financial

distress. However, if a completed

project needs additional AHP funds, it

must compete for those additional

funds.

Initial Monitoring Requirements

(§ 960.10)

Verification of Reasonable and

Customary Costs (§ § 960.10(c)(1)(ii) and

(c)(2)(ii)):

Q1. What types of documentation may

a Bank rely on in order to establish that

a project’s actual costs were reasonable

and customary in accordance with the

Bank’s project feasibility guidelines?

A1. If a project is funded by other

funding sources (such as Federal LowIncome Housing Tax Credits, FHA) that

require a cost certification upon

completion of construction or

rehabilitation, the Bank may rely upon

that cost certification to make its own

determination whether the costs are

reasonable and customary. If a cost

certification is unavailable, the Bank

shall review the final statement of

sources and uses of funds to make that

determination.

Verification of Provision of Activities

and Services (§ 960.10(c)(2)(i)):

Q2. Is a site visit necessary to confirm

that the services and activities

committed to in an AHP rental housing

application have been provided?

A2. A site visit is not necessary if the

Bank has a certification and sufficient

documentation to provide the Bank with

reasonable assurance that the services

and activities have been provided.

Long-Term Monitoring (§ 960.11)

Reasonable Sampling Plan

(§ 960.11(a)(3)(iii)(C)):

Q1. What would be considered a

reasonable sampling plan for the

selection of projects to be monitored by

a Bank each year?

A1. A Bank, working with its internal

auditors, may develop a sampling

methodology that is designed to assure

that all projects are monitored according

to the schedule established in

§ 960.11(a)(3)(iii) of the revised AHP

regulation.

Remedial Action for Noncompliance

(§ 960.12)

Reasonable Collection Efforts

(§ 960.12(a)(2)(ii)):

Q1. What are reasonable collection

efforts in the recovery of AHP subsidy

by a member from the project sponsor

or owner?

A1. Reasonable collection efforts will

depend on the facts and circumstances

of a given situation, including, but not

limited to, the expected cost of recovery

of the AHP subsidy and the amount of

subsidy to be recovered. Reasonable
66980 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

collection efforts may involve

negotiation and pursuit of legal

remedies against a project sponsor or

owner, in addition to the enforcement of

a member’s rights under a mortgage or

other lien on the project.

Use of Recovered Interest for AHPEligible Projects (§ 960.12(c)(1)(i)):

Q2. If AHP subsidy and interest are

recovered by a Bank from a member,

does the interest, as well as the AHP

subsidy, have to be made available for

other AHP-eligible projects under

§ 960.12(e)?

A2. Yes.

Other Issues

Project Completion (§ § 960.1, 960.10

and 960.11):

Q1. When is ‘‘project completion’’ to

be determined for monitoring purposes?

A1. The date on which a certificate of

occupancy is issued is one way to

determine project completion. In areas

that do not require certificates of

occupancy, a Bank should identify in its

monitoring procedures alternative ways

that it will use to determine that a

project is completed.

Use of AHP Funds for Otherwise

Eligible Costs (§ 960.5):

Q2. May a Bank prohibit the use of

AHP funds for certain types of costs that

are otherwise eligible under the statute

and revised AHP regulation?

A2. No.

Retention and Monitoring

Requirements Applicable to Projects

Approved Prior to January 1, 1998

(§ § 960.1, 960.11, and 960.16):

Q3. What are the retention and

monitoring periods for projects

approved prior to January 1, 1998?

A3. The retention and monitoring

periods for projects approved prior to

January 1, 1998, are 5 years from project

completion for owner-occupied housing

and 15 years from project completion

for rental housing.

Dated: December 12, 1997.

William W. Ginsberg,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 97–33254 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6725–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–283–AD; Amendment

39–10262; AD 97–26–19]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospatiale

Model ATR42–300 and ATR42–320

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Aerospatiale Model

ATR42–300 and ATR42–320 series

airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive ultrasonic inspections to

detect fatigue cracks of the lower lugs of

the barrel of the main landing gear

(MLG); and replacement of cracked

lower lugs with new or serviceable

parts, and a follow-on inspection. This

amendment expands the applicability of

the existing AD. This action also

provides for an optional terminating

action, which, if accomplished,

terminates the repetitive inspection

requirement. This amendment is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified in this AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking of the lower lugs of the barrel

of the MLG, which could lead to the

collapse of the MLG.

DATES: Effective January 7, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–

32–133, dated February 24, 1997, as

revised by Messier-Dowty Service

Bulletin Change Notice No. 1, dated

March 18, 1997, as listed in the

regulations, is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 7,

1998.

The incorporation by reference of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–

32–132, dated January 21, 1997, as

listed in the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of March 7, 1997 (62 FR

7665, February 20, 1997).

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

January 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

283–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from

Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne,

31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 10, 1997, the FAA issued AD

97–04–09, amendment 39–9933 (62 FR

7665, February 20, 1997), which is

applicable to certain Aerospatiale Model

ATR42–300 and ATR42–320 series

airplanes. That AD requires repetitive

ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue

cracks of the lower lugs of the barrel of

the main landing gear (MLG), for

airplanes on which the barrel assembly

has been overhauled or repaired. If any

lower lug is found to be cracked, the AD

further requires replacement of the MLG

barrel assembly with new or serviceable

parts, and a follow-on inspection. That

action was prompted by reports

indicating that, due to fatigue cracking

in the lower lugs of the barrel, the MLG

collapsed. The actions required by that

AD are intended to detect and correct

such fatigue cracking, which could lead

to the collapse of the MLG.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, advises that further

investigation has revealed that the

fatigue cracking is the result of a design

flaw that may also affect new barrel

assemblies that have never been

overhauled or repaired. In addition, the

DGAC advises that the interval for the

repetitive inspections may be extended

from 700 landings to 900 landings.

Relevant Service Information

Messier-Dowty has issued Service

Bulletin 631–32–133, dated February

24, 1997, which describes procedures to

modify the lower lugs of the barrel of

the MLG. The modification entails

reconditioning the lower lugs and

installing new bushings on the swinging

lever. Accomplishment of this

modification will prevent failure of the

lugs due to fatigue cracking.

Accomplishment of the modification