Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15883

Insurance Act (Act), 12 U.S.C. 1831g,

which prohibits any insured depository

institution from entering into a written

or oral contract with any person to

provide goods, products or services to or

for the benefit of the institution if the

performance of such contract would

adversely affect its safety or soundness.

Section 30(b) authorizes the FDIC to

prescribe such regulations as may be

necessary to carry out the purposes of

section 30. In accordance with this

authority, the FDIC Board of Directors

issued for public comment a proposal to

add new Part 334 to the FDIC’s rules

and regulations (which was published

in the Federal Register on April 1, 1991

(56 FR 13291)) to address adverse

contracts.

The proposed rule would have

implemented section 30 of the Act by

prohibiting any insured depository

institution from entering into any

contract determined to be adverse and

would have treated all adverse contracts

uniformly without distinguishing

between contracts with affiliates and

those with non-affiliates. The proposed

rule would not have defined with

specificity the types of contracts that

would be considered adverse. Instead,

the proposal provided examples of

terms that could indicate an adverse

arrangement and identified prohibited

actions by a discussion of previously

encountered abuses.

Under the proposed rule, each

contract would have been evaluated

separately on the basis of its own terms

and by comparison with the terms of

similar contracts entered into by the

institution and other institutions. The

burden of establishing the propriety of

a contract with respect to which the

appropriate Federal banking agency has

made an initial determination of adverse

effect on the institution’s safety or

soundness would have been on the

institution and its contractor. As

discussed in the preamble, the

‘‘preponderance of evidence’’ standard

normally would have applied, but

where there was evidence of bad faith,

intentional wrong-doing or fraud, the

propriety and legality of the contract

would have been determined by clear

and convincing evidence. The proposed

rule also would have made clear that

enforcement actions may be taken

directly against any contractor, as an

‘‘institution-affiliated party’’.

The proposed rule also requested

specific comment on how to prevent

abuses involving contracts with holding

companies and other affiliates.

Although an approach for dealing with

affiliate contracts was discussed in the

preamble, no rule was proposed. It was

suggested that the FDIC might establish

a rebuttable regulatory presumption that

certain types of contracts between an

insured institution and its affiliates are

adverse. However, it was specifically

noted that such a rebuttable

presumption would not prohibit all

affiliate contracts. Instead, only certain

specified types of contracts would be

covered and contracts with other

insured institutions or with subsidiaries

of insured institutions would be

excluded from being presumed adverse.

Discussion

Summary of Comments Received

The FDIC received 206 comments on

the proposed rule. Almost all of the

comments received opposed the

proposed rule or suggested major

changes, while many commenters

requested that the FDIC withdraw the

proposed rule. Many commenters

expressed the view that a regulation

dealing with adverse contracts would

create an unnecessary regulatory burden

and that the Federal banking agencies

already possess the necessary

supervisory authority to deal with such

contracts. Many of the objections to the

proposal focused on the possibility of

treating contracts with affiliates

differently from those with nonaffiliates and were virtually unanimous

in their opposition to developing an

additional rule dealing with affiliate

contracts. Other objections to the

proposed rule focused on: (1)

Inadequacies in the definition of

‘‘contract’’; (2) the requirement that an

insured institution must rebut a prima

facie case that a particular contract is

adverse with clear and convincing

evidence; and (3) including

independent contractors as ‘‘institutionaffiliated parties’’ who could be joined

to FDIC cease-and-desist actions against

insured institutions and/or named as

respondents in civil money penalty and

prohibition actions.

Policy Statement

The FDIC’s policy statement on

Development and Review of FDIC Rules

and Regulations (44 FR 31007, May 30,

1979) calls for withdrawal of any

proposed regulation with respect to

which final action by the FDIC Board of

Directors has not been taken within nine

months from the date of proposal. The

FDIC believes that withdrawal of the

proposed rule is appropriate because no

action has been taken with respect to

the proposal for over nine months.

Effect of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

Section 30 of the Act authorizes (but

does not require) the FDIC to

promulgate such regulations as may be

necessary to administer and carry out

the purposes of, and prevent evasions

of, the statutory prohibition. The statute

is enforceable by its own terms by the

FDIC and the other Federal banking

agencies in the absence of an

implementing regulation. The FDIC has

decided to withdraw the proposed rule

because of the significant decrease in

the type of activity that the proposed

rule was intended to eliminate (i.e.,

abuses involving contracts made by or

on behalf of an insured institution that

seriously jeopardize or misrepresent its

safety and soundness), the

overwhelmingly negative comments

received on the proposed rule, and an

FDIC policy statement that recommends

the withdrawal of proposed rules that

have not been acted upon by the FDIC

Board of Directors within nine months

of the date of proposal. Moreover, the

FDIC believes that the statute can be

administered without regulation. The

FDIC may decide, however, at a later

date to publish a new proposal if it

determines that the existence of adverse

contracts has increased or that such

action is otherwise necessary or

appropriate. If the FDIC wishes at a later

date to promulgate a regulation that

deals with or addresses adverse

contracts, it will begin the rulemaking

process anew.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FDIC hereby withdraws proposed new

Part 334 of Title 12 of the Code of

Federal Regulations.

By Order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st day of

March 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7522 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

Airworthiness Standards; Fiscal Year

1998 Rotorcraft Research and

Development Initiative, Program

Identification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Call for part 27 and 29 research

and development program proposals.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a call

for proposals that will define the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Aircraft Certification Service, Rotorcraft

Directorate Research and Development
15884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(RE&D) initiative for Fiscal Year (FY)

1998 by defining and documenting

specific, potential RE&D program

proposals. The call for proposals will

focus on Aircraft Certification RE&D

programs that support activity related to

FAR Parts 27, 29, and associated

operations Parts. Other FAA

requirements such as flight standards,

air traffic, or airway facilities will not be

addressed. The FAA is soliciting the

public sector to ensure that proposed

Rotorcraft RE&D requirements will have

relevant, practical applications and will

be cost effective.

DATES: The call for proposals will be

open until close of business May 15,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Mike Mathias,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth,

Texas 76193–0111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Mathias, Aerospace Engineer,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, FAA,

Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth,

Texas 76193–0111; telephone (817)

222–5123.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each FY

the FAA prepares an RE&D program

plan that includes new (and amended)

RE&D proposals. The Aircraft

Certification Service’s Rotorcraft

Directorate is responsible for preparing

its part of the overall FAA submittal.

The philosophy of the RE&D process

is to create an atmosphere that will

promote the identification of

requirements by any person or

organization in the government or

private sector. This makes the RE&D

process more responsive to public sector

needs. Within the Aircraft Certification

Service, the RE&D process places

increased emphasis on FAA Aircraft

Certification Directorate and Division

level participation in identifying new

requirements and in sponsoring and

monitoring the resulting RE&D projects.

Therefore, as part of the overall FAA

and Aircraft Certification initiative, the

FAA’s Rotorcraft Directorate is

undertaking a directly-related initiative

specifically for the rotorcraft

community. It has the same basic

mission, goals, and procedures as the

agency-wide initiative.

The Rotorcraft Directorate will

implement its segment of the FY-98

submittal by identifying, describing,

evaluating, and cataloging potential

RE&D requirements (i.e., proposals) for

potential sponsorship and incorporation

into the overall FAA FY-98 RE&D

submittal. This will result in a

coordinated FY-98 rotorcraft

requirements package that will be

assigned to the appropriate FAA RE&D

provider organizations when approved

and when funds are allocated by the

budget process.

It should be stressed that the

proposals that are evaluated as a result

of this notice, if accepted, will not be

funded until the overall FAA FY 98

RE&D submittal is funded, (i.e., at least

two (2) years after their original

submittal on 10/15/95) and that

reprogramming of limited RE&D

resources before then is highly unlikely.

Also, the accepted proposals will have

to compete for resources with other

requirements identified for RE&D by

other FAA activities. Nonetheless, the

need clearly exists to identify Rotorcraft

Certification RE&D needs to compete for

the agency’s RE&D resources.

As a matter of information, there are

four primary FAA RE&D supplier

organizations: (1) The Technical Center

(ACD) in Atlantic City, New Jersey; (2)

the Research and Development Service

(ARD) in Washington, D.C.; (3) the

Office of Environment and Energy (AEE)

in Washington, D.C.; and (4) the Office

of Aviation Medicine’s Civil

Aeromedical Institute (AAM/CAMI) in

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. These

organizations perform the RE&D on

programs that are approved and funded

through the process.

Although not mandatory, the format

of Figure 1 for RE&D proposals is

preferred:

Figure 1—FY-98 Rotorcraft Directorate

RE&D Program Description Form

Originator

(Insert Name, Address, Phone Number,

and Fax Number)

Proposed RE&D Program Descriptions &

Objectives

(Insert Brief Description of the proposal

program and its major goals and

objectives)

Note: A more detailed description may be

attached in addition to this summary but is

not mandatory at this time.

How Would You Accomplish this

Program?

(Insert Brief Description of your

recommended method of accomplishing

the proposed RE&D program)

Justification/History

(If appropriate, furnish data such as a

concise accident/incident history and

any other relevant statistics or

information that would show that the

proposed research is needed, costeffective, and applicable to developing a

solution to the proposed RE&D project.

This history/justification input data will

be used to aid in assessing the relative

value of the proposed RD&D project.)

Anticipated Benefits/Products and

Beneficiaries

(Insert Brief Description of anticipated

benefits/products, who would benefit,

and how)

If an RE&D proposal has been

submitted previously, then (unless a

major change or update has been made)

it is on file and need not be resubmitted.

Copies of this notice are being mailed

to all known interested parties. Any

interested party who desires but has not

received a copy of this notice by May 8,

1995, should request a copy from Mary

June Bruner, FAA Rotorcraft Standards

Staff, Fort Worth, TX 76137–0111,

telephone (817) 222–5110.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 16,

1995.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–7618 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ASO–7]

Proposed Establishment of Class D

Airspace; Jackson, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

establish Class D airspace at Jackson,

TN. A non-federal control tower is being

commissioned at the Jackson/McKellarSipes Regional Airport. Class D airspace

is required when the control tower is in

operation to accommodate current

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures (SIAPs) and for instrument

flight rules (IFR) operations at the

airport. This action would also modify

the Class E airspace to classify the

airspace as part-time when the tower is

closed.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

95–ASO–7, Manager, System

Management Branch, ASO–530, P.O.

Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550,

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,

Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305–

5586.