Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66863

1The definition of central government includes

departments and ministries of the central

government, as well as central banks, but does not

extend to state, provincial, or local governments or

commercial enterprises owned by central

governments. Nor does it extend to securities of

local government entities or commercial enterprises

guaranteed by the central government. 12 CFR part

325, II.C., note 17 (1995).

discretionary release would be

improper, the FOIA Coordinator shall

give written notice of denial in

accordance with § 1.8(a) of this title.

§ 3701.5 Appeals.

Any person whose request is denied

shall have the right to appeal such

denial. Appeals shall be made in

accordance with Section 1.6(e) of this

title and should be addressed as follows:

Administrator, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250.

§ 3701.6 Requests for published data and

information.

Information on published data from

ERS programs is contained in the ERS

‘‘Reports’’ newsletter, available without

cost from the Economic Research

Service, Information Center, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1301 New

York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20005.

Done at Washington, DC, this 19th day of

December 1995.

John Dunmore,

Acting Administrator, Economic Research

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–31185 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–18–M

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 360

RIN 3064–AB69

Definition of Qualified Financial

Contracts

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (FDIC or

Corporation) has adopted a rule to

include spot and other short-term

foreign exchange agreements and

repurchase agreements on qualified

foreign government securities within the

definition of ‘‘qualified financial

contracts’’ under the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act (FDI Act). The FDI Act

authorizes the FDIC to expand the

definition of qualified financial contract

by promulgation of regulations to

include agreements similar to those

currently identified as qualified

financial contracts within the FDI Act.

The FDIC has determined that spot and

other short-term foreign exchange

agreements are similar to swap

agreements, which are included within

the qualified financial contract

provisions of the statute and that

repurchase agreements on qualified

foreign government securities are

similar to those repurchase agreements

already recognized as qualified financial

contracts under the statute.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Powers Sivertsen, Assistant

General Counsel, Legal Division, (202)

736–0112; Keith A. Ligon, Senior

Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 736–

0160; or Christine M. Bradley, Attorney,

Legal Division, (202) 736–0106, Legal

Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 11(e)(8) through (10) of the

FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8) through

(10), provide special rules for the

treatment of qualified financial

contracts in the event the FDIC is

appointed receiver or conservator for an

insured depository institution. The

statute seeks, among other things, to

protect parties to qualified financial

contracts by allowing for the

liquidation, termination, and netting of

their agreements. The statute defines

certain securities contracts, commodity

contracts, forward contracts, repurchase

agreements and swap agreements as

qualified financial contracts.

Section 11(e)(8)(D) of the FDI Act

identifies in some detail the types of

contracts to be treated as qualified

financial contracts, but additionally

affords the FDIC express authority to

adopt regulations extending the

definition to any similar agreement. 12

U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(D)(i).

Proposed Rule

In September 1995, the FDIC

requested comment on a proposed

regulation that would expand the

definition of qualified financial contract

to include agreements similar to the

agreements identified within the FDI

Act as qualified financial contracts. (60

FR 48935, Sept. 21, 1995). The FDIC

proposed that spot and other short-term

foreign exchange agreements and that

repurchase agreements on securities

issued or guaranteed by the central

governments belonging to the

Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD), or that have

concluded special lending arrangements

with the International Monetary Fund

(IMF) associated with the IMF’s General

Arrangements to Borrow, be considered

as qualified financial contracts under

the FDI Act.

The FDIC intended that the definition

of qualified financial contract be

expanded to include certain instruments

that facilitate appropriate liquidity,

hedging and financial intermediation

operations in financial institutions.

Adoption of the regulation to include

spot and other short-term foreign

exchange contracts and repurchase

agreements on qualified foreign

government securities within the

definition of qualified financial contract

is not intended to exclude other

agreements that may otherwise qualify

to be qualified financial contracts under

the language of section 11(e)(8)(D) itself.

Final Rule

The final rule adopted by the

Corporation includes spot and other

short-term foreign exchange agreements

within the definition of qualified

financial contract. The final rule

clarifies that short-dated foreign

exchange transactions such as spots,

tomorrow/next day and same day/

tomorrow transactions are similar

agreements to those agreements

identified within the statute as swap

agreements.

The final rule also expands the

definition of qualified financial contract

to include repurchase agreements on

securities issued or guaranteed by the

central governments of countries that

are either full members of the OECD or

that have concluded special lending

arrangements with the International

Monetary Fund (IMF) associated with

the IMF’s General Arrangements to

Borrow (repurchase agreement on

qualified foreign government securities).

The final rule incorporates by reference

the definition of ‘‘central government’’

as set forth in 12 CFR part 325,

appendix A, II.C note 17 1 and ‘‘OECDbased group of countries’’ as set forth in

12 CFR part 325, appendix A, II.B.2,

note 12 (and incorporating any changes

to these definitions that should occur by

future amendment).

Summary of Comments

The FDIC received 8 comment letters

on the proposed regulation on the

Definition of Qualified Financial

Contracts. All commenters strongly

support the Corporation’s expansion of

the definition of qualified financial

contract to include spot and other shortterm foreign exchange agreements and

repurchase agreements on qualified

foreign government securities. The

commenters generally agree that

promulgation of the proposed regulation
66864 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2The Basle Accord is a risk-based framework that

was originally proposed by the Basle Committee on

Banking Supervision (Basle Supervisors’

Committee) and endorsed by the central bank

governors of the Group of 10 (G–10) countries in

July 1988. The Basle Supervisors’ Committee was

comprised at that time of representatives of the

central bank and supervisory authorities from the

G–10 countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany,

Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland,

the United Kingdom, and the United States) and

Luxembourg.

3Long-term claims on banks of OECD countries

also generally receive lower risk weights than

corresponding claims on the banks of non-OECD

countries. See , e.g., Proposed Rule for Capital

Maintenance Guidelines, 60 FR 8582 (1995).

clarifies the treatment these contracts

would receive in the event the FDIC

were appointed receiver or conservator

of an insured depository institution.

Five of the commenters provided

additional suggestions on the proposed

rule, which are summarized below.

Definition of Spot Foreign Exchange

Agreements

Two of the commenters suggested that

the final regulation recognize spot and

other short-term foreign exchange

agreements as qualified financial

contracts through the expansion of the

existing definition of ‘‘swap agreement’’

as provided in 12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(vi), rather than by creating

a definition specific to these short-term

agreements. The commenters stated that

by including spot and other short-term

foreign exchange agreements within the

definition of swap agreement,

counterparties to the agreements would

be assured that a master agreement for

any such agreement would be treated as

one swap agreement under 12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(vii).

Additionally, the commenters noted

that expansion of the definition of swap

agreement to include spot foreign

exchange agreements is consistent with

the manner in which the Bankruptcy

Code was amended as a part of the

Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. 11

U.S.C. 101(53B).

The Corporation agrees with this

recommendation and has revised the

final regulation to provide that ‘‘spot

foreign exchange agreements’’ as

defined in the regulation are to be

considered qualified financial contracts

through the specific expansion of the

definition of swap agreement contained

at 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(D)(vi). In light of

this revision, the Corporation has

determined that the phrase ‘‘or

combination of agreements (including

master agreements)’’, which appeared in

the proposed regulation at § 360.5(b)(1),

is unnecessary. Accordingly, this phrase

is deleted in § 360.5(c)(1) of the final

regulation. A swap agreement includes

any combination of such agreements

and a master agreement for such

agreements is treated as one swap

agreement under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)

(vi) and (vii).

Repurchase Agreements on Qualified

Foreign Government Securities

The Corporation received 4 comments

on the proposal to expand the definition

of repurchase agreements which are

recognized as qualified financial

contracts to include repurchase

agreements on securities issued or

guaranteed by the central governments

of OECD countries. Although all of the

commenters supported promulgation of

the proposed regulation, three of the

commenters suggested that they would

prefer that the Corporation not restrict

the expansion of the definition of

repurchase agreement under 12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(v) to repurchase

agreements on securities issued or

guaranteed by the OECD countries. The

fourth commenter endorsed the

Corporation’s proposed expansion of the

definition of repurchase agreements to

include repurchase agreements issued

or guaranteed by the OECD countries,

and commented that the proposed scope

of the definition was appropriate in

order to limit potential exposure to the

deposit insurance funds.

One commenter asserted that because

repurchase agreements on the securities

of any issuer should be recognized as

qualified financial contracts through the

definition of ‘‘securities contract’’

provided at 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(D)(ii),

the regulation should not be restricted

to repurchase agreements on securities

issued or guaranteed by the central

governments of the OECD countries,

and, as a result, any repurchase

agreement involving any type of

security should be considered a

qualified financial contract.

The FDI Act identifies the repurchase

agreements which are qualified

financial contracts with reference to the

Bankruptcy Code definition of

repurchase agreement. The Bankruptcy

Code defines repurchase agreement as:

an agreement, including related terms, which

provides for the transfer of certificates of

deposit, eligible bankers’ acceptances, or

securities that are direct obligations of, or

that are fully guaranteed as to principal and

interest by, the United States or any agency

of the United States against the transfer of

funds by the transferee of such certificates of

deposit, eligible bankers’ acceptances, or

securities with a simultaneous agreement by

such transferee to transfer to the transferor

thereof certificates of deposit, eligible

bankers’ acceptances, or securities as

described above, at a date certain not later

than one year after such transfers or on

demand, against the transfer of funds.

11 U.S.C. 101(47). Consequently, the

Bankruptcy Code definition and by

incorporation the FDI Act definition of

repurchase agreement does not include

repurchase agreements on qualified

foreign government securities. In order

for such repurchase agreements to be

treated as qualified financial contracts

under the current statute, the FDIC is

required to promulgate this final

regulation under its regulatory

authority. 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(D)(i).

The second comment on the FDIC’s

limited expansion of the definition of

repurchase agreement under 12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(v) concentrates on the

growth of the international market for

repurchase agreements on foreign

government securities. One commenter

stated that the growth of this market is

not limited to securities issued or

guaranteed by the central governments

of the OECD countries. Another

commenter submitted that non-OECD

government securities were becoming a

growing portion of the market for

repurchase agreements on foreign

government securities. These

commenters conclude that there is no

difference between repurchase

agreements on OECD government

securities and repurchase agreements on

non-OECD government securities other

than the nature of the risks posed by the

underlying securities.

Qualified financial contracts are

accorded special status under the FDI

Act and are treated differently from

other contracts upon appointment of the

FDIC as conservator or receiver for an

insured depository institution. Any

expansion of the definition of qualified

financial contract results in a

commensurate potential increase in cost

to the receivership or conservatorship,

which indirectly creates potential losses

to the deposit insurance funds. By

limiting the expansion of the definition

of repurchase agreements, the FDIC is

balancing the growing

internationalization of major banking

and financial markets with the potential

risks posed to the deposit insurance

funds arising from the credit risk

inherent in such an expansion.

In 1989, the FDIC implemented riskbased capital guidelines in order to

implement the International

Convergence of Capital Measurement

and Capital Standards of July 1988, as

reported by the Basle Committee on

Banking Supervision (the Basle

Accord).2 The Basle Committee

concluded that claims unconditionally

guaranteed by governments of countries

that are full members of the OECD

should be distinguished from claims

similarly guaranteed by governments of

non-OECD countries.3 The Basle
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66865

4Transfer risk generally refers to the possibility

that an asset cannot be serviced in the currency of

payment because of a lack of, or restraints on, the

availability of needed foreign exchange in the

country of the obligor. See, e.g., 60 FR 8582 (1995).

5Paragraph (d) of § 360.5 appeared as paragraph

(c) in the Proposed Rule.

6Section 302 of RCDRIA provides that any new

regulations and amendments to existing regulations

which impose reporting, disclosure or other

requirements on insured depository institutions

may only take effect on the first day of a calendar

quarter unless certain exceptions are satisfied.

Committee analyzed the credit risk and

country transfer risk associated with

government securities and determined

that membership in OECD was an

appropriate basis for granting a more

favorable risk weighting.4

The OECD is an international

organization of countries which are

committed to market-oriented economic

policies, including the promotion of

private enterprise and free market

prices, liberal trade policies, and the

absence of exchange controls. These

commitments are expressed in the Code

of Liberalisation of Capital Movements

and the Code of Liberalisation of

Current Invisible Operations

(collectively, the Codes). OECD

members are expected to ensure that the

obligations accepted under either Code

are honored, including the removal of

legal or administrative regulations that

would otherwise frustrate the movement

of capital from one member country to

another. The OECD countries’

adherence to the Codes is generally

associated with a relatively low transfer

risk when considering transactions

between member countries.

The same considerations which were

analyzed by the Basle Committee and

the FDIC in establishing its risk-based

capital guidelines, including the

commitments of the OECD countries

under the Codes, are important in

determining how the definition of

qualified financial contract should be

expanded under 12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(i). Consequently, the FDIC

is retaining the provision restricting the

repurchase agreements recognized as

qualified financial contracts to

repurchase agreements on securities

issued or guaranteed by the central

governments of the countries belonging

to the OECD or that have concluded

special lending arrangements with the

IMF associated with the IMF’s General

Arrangements to Borrow.

Other Comments

One commenter suggested that the

FDIC conform its definition of qualified

financial contract to the definition of

‘‘financial contract’’ as used by the

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System (Board) in Regulation

EE, Netting Eligibility for Financial

Institutions, 12 CFR part 231 (59 FR

4780, Feb. 2, 1995). Regulation EE

defines financial contract with reference

to the definition of qualified financial

contract contained in the FDI Act (12

U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(D), as amended),

except that Regulation EE specifies that

a forward contract includes a contract

with a maturity date of two days or less

after the date the contract is entered into

(i.e., a ‘‘spot’’ contract). 12 CFR

231.2(c)(1995).

The FDIC has determined that the

definition of financial contract as used

by the Board in Regulation EE does not

affect the FDIC’s definition of qualified

financial contract under the FDI Act. As

the Board stated in the final publication

of Regulation EE, the definition of

financial contract within Regulation EE

is relevant only to a determination of

whether a particular institution qualifies

as a ‘‘financial institution’’ under the

regulation. Once an institution qualifies

as a financial institution under

Regulation EE, its ability to avail itself

of the netting provisions as set forth in

12 U.S.C. 4401–4407 is determined with

reference to the definition of ‘‘netting

contract’’ contained at 12 U.S.C.

4402(14). (59 FR 4780, 4783, Feb. 2,

1994). The FDIC has determined that its

proposed regulation on the Definition of

Qualified Financial Contracts does not

change the interpretation of Regulation

EE or the netting provisions of sections

4401–4407 of title 12.

Finally, one commenter requested

that the FDIC delete the provisos

outlined in paragraph (d) of the § 360.5.5

The FDIC has determined that

paragraph (d) should be retained to

clarify that nothing in this regulation is

intended to affect any rights and powers

the Corporation might otherwise have in

its capacity of insurer and regulator of

certain depository institutions.

In order to facilitate the continued

participation of United States financial

institutions in major financial markets

after January 1, 1996, the Board of

Directors has determined that good

cause exists for waiving the 30-day

delayed effective date ordinarily

required by the Administrative

Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). The

Board of Directors has also determined

that section 302 of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160)(1994)

(RCDRIA) does not apply to the issuance

of the final rule.6

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 360

Banks, banking, Saving associations.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the FDIC Board of Directors

amends 12 CFR part 360 as follows:

PART 360—RESOLUTION AND

RECEIVERSHIP RULES

1. The authority citation for part 360

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11),

1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4); Sec. 401(h), Pub.

L. 101–73, 103 Stat. 357.

2. Section 360.5 is added to part 360

to read as follows:

§ 360.5 Definition of qualified financial

contracts.

(a) Authority and purpose. Sections

11(e) (8) through (10) of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)

(8) through (10), provide special rules

for the treatment of qualified financial

contracts of an insured depository

institution for which the FDIC is

appointed conservator or receiver,

including rules describing the manner

in which qualified financial contracts

may be transferred or closed out.

Section 11(e)(8)(D)(i) of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(i), grants the Corporation

authority to determine by regulation

whether any agreement, other than

those identified within section

11(e)(8)(D), should be recognized as

qualified financial contracts under the

statute. The purpose of this section is to

identify additional agreements which

the Corporation has determined to be

qualified financial contracts.

(b) Repurchase agreements. The

following agreements shall be deemed

‘‘repurchase agreements’’ under section

11(e)(8)(D)(v) of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act, as amended (12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(v)): A repurchase

agreement on qualified foreign

government securities is an agreement

or combination of agreements (including

master agreements) which provides for

the transfer of securities that are direct

obligations of, or that are fully

guaranteed by, the central governments

(as set forth at 12 CFR part 325,

appendix A, section II.C, n. 17, as may

be amended from time to time) of the

OECD-based group of countries (as set

forth at 12 CFR part 325, appendix A,

section II.B.2., note 12 as may be

amended from time to time) against the

transfer of funds by the transferee of

such securities with a simultaneous

agreement by such transferee to transfer

to the transferor thereof securities as

described above, at a date certain not

later than one year after such transfers

or on demand, against the transfer of

funds.
66866 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Section 303 of CDRIA, 12 U.S.C. 4803(a)(1)(A),

(B).

2See 60 FR 44442 (August 28, 1995).

3The specific questions in the preamble were:

1. Should OTS consolidate common definitions

of general applicability now in parts 541, 561, 563,

and 583 in a new part 501?

2. Should OTS consolidate the remaining safety

and soundness regulations in part 545 into part

563?

3. Should OTS delete regulations that only repeat

statutory authority or list an implied power?

4. Should policy statements in parts 556 and 571

be deleted and either recast as regulations or placed

as guidance in the appropriate regulatory

handbook?

5. What is the best method of communicating

different types of information, guidance, policies,

restrictions, and requirements?

4ACB is a trade association representing 2,000

savings associations and community financial

institutions and related business firms. ACB’s

survey was sent to 94 OTS-supervised institutions;

43 institutions completed the survey. As reported

by ACB, 86 percent of the respondents deem

simplification of OTS rules to be worth the time

and attention of the OTS and the industry.

(c) Swap agreements. The following

agreements shall be deemed ‘‘swap

agreements’’ under section

11(e)(8)(D)(vi) of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act, as amended (12 U.S.C.

1821(e)(8)(D)(vi)): A spot foreign

exchange agreement is any agreement

providing for or effecting the purchase

or sale of one currency in exchange for

another currency (or a unit of account

established by an intergovernmental

organization such as the European

Currency Unit) with a maturity date of

two days or less after the agreement has

been entered into, and includes shortdated transactions such as tomorrow/

next day and same day/tomorrow

transactions.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be

construed as limiting or changing a

party’s obligation to comply with all

reasonable trading practices and

requirements, non-insolvency law

requirements and any other

requirements imposed by other

provisions of the FDI Act. This section

in no way limits the authority of the

Corporation to take supervisory or

enforcement actions, or to otherwise

manage the affairs of a financial

institution for which the Corporation

has been appointed conservator or

receiver.

By Order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 19th day of

December, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Robert E. Feldman,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31247 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Parts 500, 504, 510, 515, 529,

533, 543, 545, 552, 556, 562, 563, 563d,

563g, 571, 583, and 584

[No. 95–201]

RIN 1550–AA85

Regulatory Review

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision,

Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Thrift

Supervision (OTS or Office) is today

issuing a final rule eliminating

duplicative, unduly burdensome, and

unnecessary regulations. These

amendments result from a review of

OTS regulations pursuant to section

303(a) of the Community Development

and Regulatory Improvement Act of

1994 (CDRIA) and the Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative of the Vice

President’s National Performance

Review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francis E. Raue, Policy Analyst,

Supervision Policy, (202) 906–5750; or

Valerie J. Lithotomos, Counsel (Banking

and Finance), Regulations and

Legislation Division, Chief Counsel’s

Office, (202) 906–6439, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The OTS conducted a comprehensive

review of its regulations in the spring of

1995 pursuant to section 303 of CDRIA

and the Administration’s Reinvention

Initiative. Staff in both the Washington

and Regional Offices reviewed the

regulations and policy statements

contained in Chapter V of Title 12 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to:

‘‘streamline and modify those

regulations and policies in order to

improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary

costs, * * * eliminate unwarranted

constraints on credit availability [and]

remove inconsistencies and outmoded

and duplicative requirements.’’ 1 The

OTS sought industry input through

town meetings and industry roundtable

meetings held by the Acting Director

and Regional Directors.

As a result of this effort, the OTS

identified a number of ways in which its

regulations could be improved and, on

August 28, 1995, issued a notice of

proposed rulemaking.2 The preamble to

the proposed rulemaking described a

multi-step process that the agency

intends to follow to implement the

results of its regulatory review.

The first step in that process is to

eliminate regulations that are clearly

outdated, duplicative, or otherwise

unnecessary. Today’s final rule draws

this first step to a close.

The second step is to conduct

focused, intensive reviews of key areas

of OTS’s regulations in an effort to find

additional ways to streamline and

reduce burden. This effort is already

underway. Over the next several

months, OTS expects to issue proposals

that will reduce the burden imposed by

its regulations governing lending,

subsidiaries, corporate governance, and

preemption.

A third step in the review process is

to determine whether the OTS’s

regulations should be reorganized to

make them more user-friendly. In the

August 28 preamble, the agency posed

five questions regarding the overall

structure and content of its regulations.3

The OTS appreciates the comments

received in response to these questions

and will take them into consideration in

future rulemakings that specifically

address the organizational issues raised

by the comments.

II. Summary of Comments

The August 28, 1995, notice of

proposed rulemaking targeted

approximately eight percent of OTS’s

regulations for immediate repeal. The

public comment period on the August

28 proposal closed on October 27, 1995.

Two federal savings banks, one savings

and loan holding company, and one

national trade association submitted

comments. In addition to its comment

letter, the national trade association,

America’s Community Bankers (ACB),

included the results of a survey which

ACB sent to a number of OTSsupervised institutions.4

Generally all of the commenters

supported the OTS initiative to

streamline and eliminate unnecessary

and burdensome rules in the proposal.

They indicated that the deletions and

modifications, with a few exceptions,

would be helpful.

However, one commenter

recommended that paragraphs (a) and

(c) of § 545.15 not be deleted. Paragraph

(a) provides generally that a Federal

savings association shall require at least

seven days advance notice of

withdrawals from savings accounts that

do not have fixed or minimum terms of

at least seven days. The commenter

asked that this paragraph be retained

because it believes that the elimination

of the seven-day withdrawal notice on

savings accounts may conflict with