[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 169 (Thursday, August 31, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45606-45609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21567]
[[Page 45605]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
_______________________________________________________________________
12 CFR Part 325
Capital Maintenance; Interim Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 45606]]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 325
RIN 3064-AB57
Capital Maintenance
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FDIC is amending its capital adequacy standards for FDIC-
supervised banks with regard to the regulatory capital treatment of
certain transfers with recourse. This amendment is being adopted to
implement section 208 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Riegle Act). Section 208 provides
that a qualifying insured depository institution that transfers small
business loans and leases on personal property with recourse need
include only the amount of retained recourse in its risk-weighted
assets when calculating its capital ratios, provided that certain
conditions are met. This rule will have the effect of lowering the
capital requirements for small business loans and leases on personal
property that have been transferred with recourse by qualifying insured
depository institutions that are supervised by the FDIC.
DATES: The interim rule is effective August 31, 1995. Comments on this
interim rule must be received by October 30, 1995.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be submitted to Office of the Executive
Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429. Comments may be hand delivered to Room F-
402, 1776 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429, on business days
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Fax number: (202)898-3838; Internet
address: comments@fdic.gov) Comments will be available for inspection
at the FDIC's Reading Room, Room 7118, 550 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For supervisory issues, Stephen G.
Pfeifer, Examination Specialist, Accounting Section, Division of
Supervision (202/898-8904); for legal issues, Dirck A. Hargraves,
Attorney, Legal Division (202/898-7049).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The FDIC's current regulatory capital standards are intended to
ensure that insured depository institutions that transfer assets and
retain the credit risk inherent in those assets maintain adequate
capital to support that risk. This is generally accomplished by
requiring that assets transferred with recourse continue to be reported
on the institution's balance sheet when the institution files its
quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) with the FDIC.
Thus, these amounts are included in the calculation of the risk-based
and leverage capital ratios for FDIC-supervised institutions.
This regulatory reporting and capital treatment differs from how
sales of assets with recourse are reported under generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP), which generally permit most such
transactions to be reported as sales, thereby allowing the assets to be
removed from the balance sheet.1
\1\ The GAAP treatment focuses on the transfer of benefits
rather than the retention of risk and, thus, allows a transfer of
receivables with recourse to be accounted for as a sale if the
transferor: (1) Surrenders control of the future economic benefits
of the assets, (2) is able to reasonably estimate its obligations
under the recourse provision, and (3) is not obligated to repurchase
the assets except pursuant to the recourse provision. In addition,
the transferor must establish a separate liability account equal to
the estimated probable losses under the recourse provision (GAAP
recourse liability account).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 208 of the Riegle Act, which Congress enacted last year,
directs the federal banking agencies to revise the current regulatory
capital treatment applied to depository institutions engaging in
recourse transactions involving small business obligations.
Specifically, the Riegle Act indicates that a qualifying insured
depository institution that transfers small business loans and leases
on personal property with recourse need include only the amount of
retained recourse in its risk-weighted assets when calculating its
capital ratios, provided two conditions are met. First, the transaction
must be treated as a sale under GAAP and, second, the depository
institution must establish a non-capital reserve sufficient to meet the
institution's reasonably estimated liability under the recourse
arrangement. The aggregate amount of recourse retained in accordance
with the provisions of the Riegle Act may not exceed 15 percent of an
institution's total risk-based capital or a greater amount established
by the appropriate federal banking agency. The Act also states that the
preferential capital treatment set forth in section 208 is not to be
applied for purposes of determining an institution's status under the
prompt corrective action statute (section 38 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o) (FDI Act)).
The Riegle Act defines a small business as one that meets the
criteria for a small business concern established by the Small Business
Administration under section 3(a) of the Small Business Act.2 This
Act also defines a qualifying institution as one that is well
capitalized or, with the approval of the appropriate federal banking
agency, adequately capitalized, as these terms are set forth in the
prompt corrective action statute. For purposes of determining whether
an institution is qualifying, its capital ratios must be calculated
without regard to the preferential capital treatment that section 208
sets forth for small business obligations.
\2\ See 15 U.S.C. 631. The Small Business Administration has
implemented regulations setting forth the criteria for a small
business concern at 13 C.F.R. 121.101 through 121.2106. For most
industry categories, the regulation defines a small business concern
as one with 500 or fewer employees. For some industry categories, a
small business concern is defined in terms of a greater or lesser
number of employees or in terms of a specified threshold of annual
receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Interim Rule
To implement the requirements of section 208 of the Riegle Act, the
FDIC is amending its risk-based and leverage capital standards. In
general, the FDIC's interim rule reduces the amount of capital that
some depository institutions are required to hold against recourse
transactions involving small business obligations.
Under the FDIC's interim rule, qualifying institutions that
transfer small business obligations with recourse are required to
maintain capital only against the amount of recourse retained (rather
than against the full amount of assets transferred with recourse),
provided two conditions are met. First, the transactions must be
treated as sales under GAAP and, second, the transferring institutions
must establish, pursuant to GAAP, a non-capital reserve sufficient to
meet the reasonably estimated liability under their recourse
arrangements. Consistent with section 208 of the Riegle Act, the
interim rule applies only to transfers of obligations of small
businesses that meet the criteria for a small business as established
by the Small Business Administration. The FDIC also notes that the
capital treatment specified in section 208 and in this interim rule for
transfers of small business obligations with recourse takes
[[Page 45607]]
precedence over the capital requirements recently implemented for
transactions involving low level recourse (60 FR 15858, March 28, 1995)
to the extent that they also involve small business obligations. In
this regard, the capital requirements under Section 208 for qualifying
institutions that transfer small business obligations with recourse are
more preferential than those specified in the low level recourse rule.
The FDIC's interim rule extends the preferential capital treatment
for transfers of small business obligations with recourse only to
qualifying institutions. An institution will be considered qualifying
if, pursuant to the FDIC's prompt corrective action regulation (12 CFR
part 325--subpart B),3 it is well capitalized. By order of the
FDIC, a bank that is adequately capitalized also may be deemed a
qualifying institution. In determining whether a bank meets the
qualifying institution criteria, the well capitalized and adequately
capitalized definitions set forth in the FDIC's prompt corrective
action regulation will be used, except that the bank's capital ratios
must be calculated without taking into consideration the preferential
capital treatment the interim rule provides for transfers of small
business obligations with recourse.
\3\ Under 12 CFR Part 325--Subpart B, an institution is deemed
to be well capitalized if it: (1) Has a total risk-based capital
ratio of 10.0 percent or greater; (2) has a Tier 1 risk-based
capital ratio of 6.0 percent or greater; (3) has a leverage ratio of
5.0 percent or greater; and (4) is not subject to any written
agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action
directive issued by the FDIC pursuant to section 8 of the FDI Act
(12 U.S.C. 1818), the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983
(12 U.S.C. 3907), or section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o) or
any regulation thereunder, to meet and maintain a specific capital
level for any capital measure. An institution is deemed to be
adequately capitalized if it: (1) has a total risk-based capital
ratio of 8.0 percent or greater; (2) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital
ratio of 4.0 percent or greater; (3) has a leverage ratio of 4.0
percent or greater or a leverage ratio of 3.0 percent or greater if
the institution is rated composite 1 under the CAMEL rating system
in its most recent examination and is not experiencing or
anticipating significant growth; and (4) does not meet the
definition of a well capitalized institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the interim rule, the total outstanding amount of recourse
retained by a qualifying institution on transfers of small business
obligations receiving the preferential capital treatment cannot exceed
15 percent of the institution's total risk-based capital.4 By
order, the FDIC may approve a higher limit. If an institution is no
longer a qualifying institution (e.g., it becomes less than well
capitalized) or exceeds the established limit, the institution will not
be able to apply the preferential capital treatment to any new
transfers of small business loans and leases of personal property with
recourse. However, those transfers of small business obligations with
recourse that were completed while the institution was qualified and
before it exceeded the established limit of 15 percent of total risk-
based capital will continue to receive the preferential capital
treatment even if the institution is no longer qualified or the amount
of retained recourse on such transfers subsequently exceeds the capital
limitation.
\4\ Thus, a transfer of small business loans with recourse that
results in a qualifying institution retaining recourse in an amount
greater than 15 percent of its total risk-based capital would not be
eligible for the preferential capital treatment, even though the
institution's amount of retained recourse before the transfer was
less than 15 percent of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 208(f) of the Riegle Act provides that the capital of an
insured depository institution shall be computed without regard to
section 208 when determining whether an institution is adequately
capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or
critically undercapitalized under section 38 of the FDI Act.
The caption to section 208(f), ``Prompt Corrective Action Not
Affected'', and the legislative history indicate section 208 was not
intended to affect the operation of the prompt corrective action
system. See S. Rep No. 103-169, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 38, 69 (1993).
However, the statute does not include ``well capitalized'' in the list
of capital categories not affected. The prompt corrective action system
under section 38 of the FDI Act deals primarily with imposing
corrective sanctions on institutions that are less than adequately
capitalized. Therefore, allowing an institution that is adequately
capitalized without regard to the section 208 preferential capital
treatment to use section 208 for purposes of determining whether the
bank is well capitalized generally would not affect the application of
the prompt corrective action sanctions to the institution.5 Other
statutes and regulations treat an institution more favorably if it is
well capitalized as defined under the prompt corrective action statute,
but these provisions are not part of the prompt corrective action
system of sanctions. Permitting an institution to be treated as well
capitalized for purposes of these other provisions also will not affect
the imposition of prompt corrective action sanctions.
\5\ It is very unlikely but theoretically possible for a bank
that is undercapitalized without using the preferential capital
treatment in section 208 to become well capitalized if the section
208 capital treatment is applied. Section 208 was not intended to
affect prompt corrective action, and allowing an undercapitalized
institution (without regard to section 208) to be treated as well
capitalized (with regard to section 208) would affect prompt
corrective action. The FDIC therefore believes it is inappropriate
to allow an undercapitalized institution to use the section 208
preferential capital treatment to become well capitalized for prompt
corrective action purposes. Accordingly, such an institution would
continue to be treated as undercapitalized for purposes of applying
the prompt corrective action sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one provision of the prompt corrective action system that
could be affected by treating an institution as well capitalized rather
than as adequately capitalized. In this regard, if the institution is
in an unsafe and unsound condition or is engaging in an unsafe or
unsound practice, Sec. 325.103(d) of the FDIC's regulations (12 CFR
325.103(d)) authorizes the FDIC to: (1) Reclassify a well capitalized
institution as adequately capitalized; and (2) require an adequately
capitalized institution to comply with certain prompt corrective action
provisions as if that institution were undercapitalized. Because the
text and legislative history of section 208 of the Riegle Act indicate
that it was not intended to affect prompt corrective action sanctions,
the FDIC believes that the provisions of section 208 do not affect the
capital calculation for purposes of reclassifying an institution from
one capital category to a lower capital category, regardless of the
bank's capital level.
Thus, in general, an institution may use the capital treatment
described in section 208 of the Riegle Act when determining whether it
is well capitalized for purposes of prompt corrective action as well as
for other regulations that reference the well capitalized capital
category.6 An institution may not use the capital treatment
described in section 208 when determining whether it is adequately
capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or
critically undercapitalized for purposes of prompt corrective action or
other regulations that directly or indirectly reference the prompt
corrective action capital categories.7 Furthermore, the
[[Page 45608]]
capital ratios of an institution are to be determined without regard to
the preferential capital treatment described in section 208 of the
Riegle Act for purposes of applying the reclassification provisions set
forth in Sec. 325.103(d).
\6\ An institution that is subject to a written agreement or
capital directive as discussed in the FDIC's prompt corrective
action regulation would not be considered well capitalized. Also, an
institution that is undercapitalized without regard to the
preferential Section 208 capital treatment would continue to be
treated as undercapitalized for purposes of prompt corrective action
(see footnote 5).
\7\ Under the provisions of section 208, the capital calculation
used to determine whether an institution is well capitalized differs
from the calculation used to determine whether an institution is
adequately capitalized. As a result, it is possible that an
institution could be well capitalized using one calculation (i.e.,
one that considers the preferential capital treatment under section
208) and adequately capitalized using the other (i.e., one that is
calculated ``without regard'' to section 208). In this situation,
the institution would be considered well capitalized. This
preferential capital treatment will be applied in a similar fashion
for purposes of determining whether an institution is well
capitalized under the FDIC's brokered deposit (12 CFR 337.6) and
insurance assessment (12 CFR part 327) regulations. These rules have
definitions for well capitalized and adequately capitalized
institutions that employ the same capital ratios that are used in
the FDIC's prompt corrective action regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 208(g) of the Riegle Act directed the federal banking
agencies to promulgate final regulations implementing section 208 not
later than 180 days after the date of the statute's enactment--that is,
not later than March 22, 1995. It can be fairly implied from the
statutory directive that Congress intended for qualifying institutions
to reap the benefits of the Section 208 capital treatment no later than
March 22, 1995. In order to meet the spirit of the statute, the FDIC
will raise no objection if an FDIC-supervised bank that is a qualifying
institution under the interim rule hereafter chooses to apply the
provisions of this interim rule to small business obligations that were
transferred with recourse between March 22, 1995, and the effective
date of this interim rule.
The FDIC also notes that section 208(a) of the Riegle Act provides
that accounting principles applicable to the transfer of small business
obligations with recourse contained in reports or statements required
to be filed with the Federal banking agencies by a qualified insured
depository institution shall be consistent with GAAP.8 The FDIC,
in consultation with the other agencies and under the auspices of the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, intends to ensure
that appropriate revisions are made to the Call Report and the Call
Report instructions to implement Section 208(a) of the Riegle Act.
\8\ Transfers of small business obligations with recourse that
are consummated at a time when the transferring institution does not
qualify for the preferential capital treatment will continue to be
reported in accordance with the instructions of the Consolidated
Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for sales of assets
with recourse. These instructions generally require banks
transferring assets with recourse to continue to report the assets
on their balance sheets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC is seeking comments on all aspects of this interim rule.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This interim rule reduces the regulatory capital requirement on
transfers with recourse of small business loans and leases on personal
property and there will be no adverse economic effect on small business
entities from the adoption of this interim rule.
The Board of Directors of the FDIC hereby certifies that adoption
of this amendment to part 325 will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
This amendment will not necessitate the development of
sophisticated recordkeeping or reporting systems by small institutions
nor will small institutions need to seek out the expertise of
specialized accountants, lawyers, or managers to comply with this
regulation. In light of this certification, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act requirements (at 5 U.S.C. 603, 604) to prepare initial and final
regulatory flexibility analyses do not apply.
IV. Administrative Procedure Act
Section 208(g) of the Riegle Act requires that the federal bank
regulatory agencies promulgate final rules implementing Section 208 no
later than March 22, 1995. The FDIC Board of Directors (Board) has
determined that the notice and public participation that are ordinarily
required by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) before a
regulation may take effect would, in this case, be impracticable due to
the time constraints imposed by Section 208(g). In addition, in the
Board's view, advanced public notice and comment is unnecessary, as the
interim rule merely restates the statute. Further, the interim rule
would permit qualifying institutions to reduce their capital levels,
thereby providing these institutions with greater lending flexibility.
Consequently, the added delay that would result from seeking advanced
notice and public participation could potentially adversely impact
credit availability.
The interim rule will be immediately effective upon publication in
the Federal Register. This action is being taken pursuant to section
553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act which permits the waiver of
the 30-day delayed effective date requirement for good cause and/or
where a rule relieves a restriction. The Board views the limitations of
time and the potential loss of benefit to affected parties during the
pendency of this rulemaking as good cause to waive the customary 30-day
delayed effective date. In addition, as the rule relieves a
restriction, the 30-day delayed effective date may be waived.
Nevertheless, the Board desires to have the benefit of public comment
before adoption of a permanent final rule on this subject. Accordingly,
the Board invites interested persons to submit comments during a 60-day
comment period. In adopting a final regulation, the Board will make
such revisions to the interim rule as may be appropriate based on the
comments received on the interim rule.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act and Regulatory Burden
The FDIC has determined that this interim rule will not increase
the regulatory paperwork burden of state nonmember banks pursuant to
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Consequently, no information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160) requires that
new regulations and amendments to regulations which impose additional
reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements take effect on the
first day of the calendar quarter following publication of the rule
unless, among other things, the agency determines, for good cause, that
the regulation should become effective on a day other than the first
day of the next quarter. The FDIC believes that an immediate effective
date is appropriate since the interim rule relieves a regulatory burden
on qualifying FDIC-supervised institutions that transfer small business
obligations with recourse by significantly reducing the capital
requirements on such obligations. This immediate effective date will
permit qualifying institutions to reduce the amount of capital they
must maintain to support the risk retained in these sales. Moreover,
the FDIC does not anticipate that immediate application of the rule
will present a hardship to qualifying institutions in terms of
compliance. Also, there is a statutory requirement for the banking
agencies to promulgate final regulations implementing the provisions of
section 208 by March 22, 1995. For these reasons, the FDIC has
determined that an immediate effective date is appropriate.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 325
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Capital adequacy, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
[[Page 45609]]
Savings associations, State nonmember banks.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Directors
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends part 325 of title
12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 325--CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
1. The authority citation for Part 325 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b),
1818(c), 1818(t), 1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n),
1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, 4808; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat.
1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat.
2236, 2355, 2386 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note).
2. In part 325, Sec. 325.3 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)
to read as follows:
Sec. 325.3 Minimum leverage capital requirement.
* * * * *
(e) Small business loans and leases on personal property
transferred with recourse. (1) Notwithstanding other provisions of this
part, for purposes of calculating its leverage ratio, a qualifying
institution that has transferred small business loans and leases on
personal property (small business obligations) with recourse shall
exclude from its total assets the outstanding principal amount of the
loans and leases transferred with recourse, provided two conditions are
met. First, the transaction must be treated as a sale under generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and, second, the qualifying
institution must establish pursuant to GAAP a non-capital reserve
sufficient to meet the institution's reasonably estimated liability
under the recourse arrangement. Only loans and leases to businesses
that meet the criteria for a small business concern established by the
Small Business Administration under section 3(a) of the Small Business
Act (12 U.S.C. 631) are eligible for this capital treatment.
(2) For purposes of this part, a qualifying institution is a bank
that is well capitalized. In addition, by order of the FDIC, a bank
that is adequately capitalized may be deemed a qualifying institution.
In determining whether a bank meets the qualifying institution
criteria, the prompt corrective action well capitalized and adequately
capitalized definitions set forth in Sec. 325.103 shall be used, except
that the bank's capital ratios must be calculated without regard to the
preferential capital treatment for transfers of small business
obligations with recourse specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section. The total outstanding amount of recourse retained by a
qualifying institution on transfers of small business obligations
receiving the preferential capital treatment cannot exceed 15 percent
of the institution's total risk-based capital. By order, the FDIC may
approve a higher limit.
(3) If a bank ceases to be a qualifying institution or exceeds the
15 percent of capital limit under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the
preferential capital treatment will continue to apply to any transfers
of small business obligations with recourse that were consummated
during the time the bank was a qualifying institution and did not
exceed such limit.
(4) The leverage capital ratio of a bank shall be calculated
without regard to the preferential capital treatment for transfers of
small business obligations with recourse specified in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section for purposes of:
(i) Determining whether a bank is adequately capitalized,
undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically
undercapitalized under the prompt corrective action capital category
definitions specified in Sec. 325.103; and
(ii) Applying the prompt corrective action reclassification
provisions specified in Sec. 325.103(d), regardless of the bank's
capital level.
* * * * *
3. Appendix A to part 325 is amended by adding a new paragraph 6 to
section II.B. to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 325--Statement of Policy on Risk-Based Capital
* * * * *
II. * * *
B. * * *
6. Small Business Loans and Leases on Personal Property
Transferred with Recourse.--(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of
this appendix A, a qualifying institution that has transferred small
business loans and leases on personal property (small business
obligations) with recourse shall include in risk-weighted assets
only the amount of retained recourse, provided two conditions are
met. First, the transaction must be treated as a sale under
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and, second, the
qualifying institution must establish pursuant to GAAP a non-capital
reserve sufficient to meet the institution's reasonably estimated
liability under the recourse arrangement. Only loans and leases to
businesses that meet the criteria for a small business concern
established by the Small Business Administration under section 3(a)
of the Small Business Act are eligible for this capital treatment.
(b) For purposes of this appendix A, a qualifying institution is
a bank that is well capitalized. In addition, by order of the FDIC,
a bank that is adequately capitalized may be deemed a qualifying
institution. In determining whether a bank meets the qualifying
institution criteria, the prompt corrective action well capitalized
and adequately capitalized definitions set forth in Sec. 325.103
shall be used, except that the bank's capital ratios must be
calculated without regard to the preferential capital treatment for
transfers of small business obligations with recourse specified in
section II.B.6.(a) of this appendix A. The total outstanding amount
of recourse retained by a qualifying institution on transfers of
small business obligations receiving the preferential capital
treatment cannot exceed 15 percent of the institution's total risk-
based capital. By order, the FDIC may approve a higher limit.
(c) If a bank ceases to be a qualifying institution or exceeds
the 15 percent of capital limit under section II.B.6.(b) of this
appendix A, the preferential capital treatment will continue to
apply to any transfers of small business obligations with recourse
that were consummated during the time the bank was a qualifying
institution and did not exceed such limit.
(d) The risk-based capital ratios of a bank shall be calculated
without regard to the preferential capital treatment for transfers
of small business obligations with recourse specified in paragraph
(a) of this section for purposes of:
(i) Determining whether a bank is adequately capitalized,
undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically
undercapitalized under the prompt corrective action capital category
definitions specified in Sec. 325.103; and
(ii) Applying the prompt corrective action reclassification
provisions specified in Sec. 325.103(d), regardless of the bank's
capital level.
* * * * *
By the order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 25th day of August, 1995.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-21567 Filed 8-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
