17986 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

announces two deviations from its

Financial Assistance Rules for the

Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP).

The approval of these deviations

ensures that the program goals and

objectives are achieved and that public

funds are conserved.

The TRP is a joint agency effort which

implements the provisions of Defense

Conversion, Reinvestment, and

Transition Act of 1992. The Advanced

Research Projects Agency, Department

of Energy, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Department of

Commerce through the National

Institutes of Standards and Technology,

the Department of Transportation and

the National Science Foundation are the

six agencies collaborating in the TRP.

The mission of TRP is to stimulate the

transition to a growing, integrated,

national industrial capability which

provides the most advanced, affordable,

military systems and the most

competitive commercial production.

The TRP seeks to harness the best

talents available to focus on technology

innovation, extension, infrastructure,

and education and training for product

and process technologies of critical

importance to both national security

and the national economy.

The two deviations have been

approved because they are required to

achieve program objectives. The first

deviation will permit budget periods in

excess of 12 months consistent with the

solicitation and the second deviation

permits DOE to withhold payments with

30 days verbal advance notification.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Yee, Office of Clearance and

Support, [HR–522.2], U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

1140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this

notice, the DOE announces that,

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 600, the Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Procurement and

Assistance Management has made a

determination of the need for two

deviations to the DOE Financial

Assistance Rules. The determination

document, dated March 13, 1995

provides for deviations for TRP

recipients as explained below [i.e., a

‘‘class deviation’’].

Deviation Number 1 deviates from the 12-

month budget period limitation contained in

600.31(b). This deviation is necessary to

permit projects with budget periods in excess

of 12 months to be awarded. The solicitation

allows for budgets with a base term of 12 to

24 months with options for additional 12 to

24 months. Therefore, deviation is required

to execute those financial assistance

agreements for projects with performance

periods greater than 12 months.

Deviation Number 2 permits the

withholding of payment for failure to meet

established milestone schedules with 30 days

verbal notice of failure to make progress,

thereby providing adequate advance notice of

non-compliance. This is a deviation to

600.122(h) and 600.28 and furthers the

program objective of reducing the

administrative burden.

Issued in Washington, DC, March 13, 1995.

Richard H. Hopf,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement

and Assistance Management.

[FR Doc. 95–8630 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Part 3

[Docket No. 95–07]

RIN 1557–AB14

Risk-Based Capital Requirements—

Low Level Recourse

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) is revising its

risk-based capital standards as required

by section 350 of the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994. This final

rule modifies the risk-based capital

treatment of recourse obligations to

ensure that the amount of capital that a

bank must hold against a recourse

obligation does not exceed the bank’s

maximum contractual exposure. This

corrects an anomaly in the existing riskbased capital standards under which the

capital requirement could exceed a

bank’s maximum exposure.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Thede, Senior Attorney,

Securities and Corporate Practices

Division (202/874–5210), Stephen

Jackson, National Bank Examiner, (202)

874–5070, Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency, 250 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of the Comptroller of the Currency

(OCC) is revising its risk-based capital

standards as required by section 350 of

the Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994,

Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160 (the

‘‘CDRI Act’’). Under the OCC’s current

risk-based capital standards, assets

transferred with recourse are reported

on the balance sheet in regulatory

reports. These amounts are thus

included in the calculation of banks’

risk-based capital and leverage capital

ratios. Where a bank holds a low level

of recourse, the amount of capital

required could exceed the bank’s

maximum contractual liability under

the recourse agreement. This can occur

in transactions in which a bank

contractually limits its recourse

exposure to less than the full effective

risk-based capital requirement for the

assets transferred—generally, 4 percent

for mortgage assets and 8 percent for

other assets.

The OCC and the other Federal

banking agencies (the Office of Thrift

Supervision, Federal Reserve Board, and

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)

have long recognized this anomaly in

the risk-based capital standards. On

May 25, 1994, the Federal banking

agencies, under the auspices of the

Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council (FFIEC), issued a

notice of proposed rulemaking and

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(59 FR 27116) covering the capital

treatment of recourse obligations and

direct credit substitutes. The notice

proposed, among other things, to amend

the agencies’ risk-based capital

guidelines to limit the capital charge in

low level recourse transactions to an

institution’s maximum contractual

recourse liability. For these types of

transactions the proposal would

effectively result in a dollar capital

charge for each dollar of low level

recourse exposure, up to the full

effective risk-based capital requirement

on the underlying assets.

Of the 38 commenters that sent

comments to the OCC in response to the

May 25 proposal, 13 commenters

specifically addressed limiting the

capital requirement for low level

recourse transactions to a bank’s

maximum contractual exposure. All 13

supported the limit, although many

advocated additional changes to the

OCC’s capital standards for recourse

obligations.

On September 23, 1994, the CDRI Act

was signed into law. The OCC is issuing

this final rule now in order to

implement section 350. Consequently,

this final rule covers only the limitation

of the capital requirement to a bank’s

maximum contractual exposure and

does not address any of the other issues

raised in the May 25, 1994, proposal.

The OCC and the other Federal banking

agencies will continue to consider those

other issues.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17987

The OCC, in consultation with the

other banking agencies, will issue

further guidance specifying how the

modified capital standard will be

implemented for reporting purposes.

Following issuance of this additional

guidance, the OCC intends to amend the

rule to include a specific description of

the reporting treatment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This final rule

will increase somewhat the measured

risk-based capital ratios of banks of all

sizes that sell assets with low levels of

recourse and will have a beneficial, but

not material, effect on those banks.

Executive Order 12866

The OCC has determined that this

final rule is not a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Capital risk, National banks,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 3 of chapter I of title 12

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 3—MINIMUM CAPITAL RATIOS;

ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 3 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1818,

1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n note, 1835, 3907,

and 3909.

2. In appendix A to part 3, section 3

is amended by adding a new paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 3—Risk-Based

Capital Guidelines

* * * * *

Section 3. Risk Categories/Weights for OnBalance Sheet Assets and Off-Balance Sheet

Items

* * * * *

(c) Recourse Obligations. Where the

amount of recourse liability retained by a

bank is less than the capital requirement for

credit-risk exposure, the bank shall maintain

capital for the recourse liability equal to the

amount of credit-risk exposure retained. Any

recourse liability that is subject to this

section 3(c) is not subject to any additional

capital treatment under sections 3(a) or 3(b)

of this appendix A.

* * * * *

Dated: March 17, 1995.

Eugene A. Ludwig,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 95–8719 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–170–AD; Amendment

39–9191; AD 95–08–02]

Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream

Model 4101 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Jetstream Model

4101 airplanes, that requires installation

of new case drain pipes and an

additional fairlead support for the

hydraulics case drain line in the rear

spar area of the engine/nacelle. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

fatigue failure of the case drain line in

the hydraulics system. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent the loss of main

system hydraulics as a result of lack of

support against vibration and

subsequent fatigue failure of the case

drain line for the hydraulics system.

DATES: Effective May 10, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 10,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box

16029, Dulles International Airport,

Washington, DC 20041–6029. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 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: Sam

Grober, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–1187; fax (206) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Jetstream

Model 4101 airplanes series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on December 16, 1994 (59 FR 64875).

That action proposed to require

installation of new case drain pipes and

an additional fairlead support for the

hydraulics case drain line in the rear

spar area of the engine/nacelle. –

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

single comment received. –

The commenter supports the

proposed rule. –

After careful review of the available

data, including the comment noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed. –

The FAA estimates that 9 airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD,

that it will take approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will be supplied by the

manufacturer at no cost to operators.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $5,400, or $600 per

airplane. –

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. –

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. –

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.