[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3897-3901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1812]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Differences in Capital and Accounting Standards Among the Federal 
Banking and Thrift Agencies; Report to Congressional Committees

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB).

ACTION: Notice of report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs of the United States Senate and to the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of 
Representatives.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This report was prepared by the FRB pursuant to section 121 of 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (12 
U.S.C. 1831n(c)). Section 121 requires each Federal banking and thrift 
agency to report annually to the above specified Congressional 
Committees regarding any differences between the accounting or capital 
standards used by such agency and the accounting or capital standards 
used by other banking and thrift agencies. The report must be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald A. Edwards, Deputy Associate 
Director (202/452-2741), Norah Barger, Assistant Director (202/452-
2402),

[[Page 3898]]

Barbara Bouchard, Manager (202/452-3072), or Arthur Lindo, Supervisory 
Financial Analyst (202/452-2695), Division of Banking Supervision and 
Regulation. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for 
the Deaf (TDD), Diane Jenkins (202/452-3544), Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, 20th & C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the report follows:

Report to the Congressional Committees Regarding Differences in Capital 
and Accounting Standards Among the Federal Banking and Thrift Agencies

Introduction and Overview

    This is the eighth annual report \1\ on the differences in capital 
standards and accounting practices that currently exist among the three 
banking agencies (the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(FRB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift 
Supervision (OTS).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The first two reports prepared by the Federal Reserve Board 
were made pursuant to section 1215 of the Financial Institutions 
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). The 
subsequent reports were made pursuant to section 121 of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), 
which superseded section 1215 of FIRREA.
    \2\ At the federal level, the Federal Reserve System has primary 
supervisory responsibility for state-chartered banks that are 
members of the Federal Reserve System, as well as for all bank 
holding companies and certain operations of foreign banking 
organizations. The FDIC has primary responsibility for state 
nonmember banks and FDIC-supervised savings banks. National banks 
are supervised by the OCC. The OTS has primary responsibility for 
savings and loan associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

    As stated in the previous reports to Congress, the three bank 
regulatory agencies have, for a number of years, employed a common 
regulatory framework that establishes minimum capital adequacy ratios 
for commercial banking organizations. In 1989, all three banking 
agencies and the OTS adopted a risk-based capital framework that was 
based upon the international capital accord (Basle Accord) developed by 
the Basle Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices 
(Basle Supervisors Committee) and endorsed by the central bank 
governors of the G-10 countries.
    The risk-based capital framework establishes minimum ratios of 
capital to risk-weighted assets. The Basle Accord requires banking 
organizations to have total capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2) equal to at 
least 8 percent and Tier 1 capital equal to at least 4 percent of risk-
weighted assets. Tier 1 capital includes common stock and surplus, 
retained earnings, qualifying perpetual preferred stock and surplus, 
and minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries, less disallowed 
intangibles such as goodwill. Tier 2 capital includes certain 
supplementary capital items such as general loan loss reserves, 
subordinated debt, and certain other preferred stock and convertible 
debt capital instruments, subject to appropriate limitations and 
conditions. The amount of Tier 2 includable in regulatory capital is 
limited to 100 percent of Tier 1. In addition, institutions that 
incorporate market risk exposure into their risk-based capital 
requirements may use ``Tier 3'' capital (i.e., short-term subordinated 
debt with certain restrictions on repayment provisions) to support 
their exposure to market risk. Tier 3 capital is limited to 
approximately 70 percent of an institution's measure for market risk. 
Risk-weighted assets are calculated by assigning risk weights of zero, 
20, 50, and 100 percent to broad categories of assets and off-balance 
sheet items based upon their relative credit risk. The OTS has adopted 
a risk-based capital standard that in most respects is similar to the 
framework adopted by the banking agencies. Differences between the OTS 
capital rules and those of the banking agencies are noted elsewhere in 
this report.
    The measurement of capital adequacy in the present framework is 
mainly directed toward assessing capital in relation to credit risk. In 
December 1995, the G-10 Governors endorsed an amendment to the Basle 
Accord that will, beginning in January 1998, require internationally-
active banks to measure and hold capital to support their market risk 
exposure. Specifically, banks will be required to hold capital against 
their exposure to general market risk associated with changes in 
interest rates, equity prices, exchange rates, and commodity prices, as 
well as for exposure to specific risk associated with equity positions 
and certain debt positions in the trading portfolio. The FRB, FDIC, and 
OCC issued in August 1996 amendments to their respective risk-based 
capital standards that implemented the market risk amendment to the 
Accord. The banking agencies' amendments contain a threshold amount of 
trading activity: institutions with trading assets and liabilities 
greater than or equal to 10 percent of assets or trading assets and 
liabilities greater than or equal to $1 billion are required to apply 
the market risk rules. The OTS did not amend its capital rules in this 
regard since savings institutions do not have such significant levels 
of trading activity.
    In addition to the risk-based capital requirements, the agencies 
also have established leverage standards setting forth minimum ratios 
of capital to total assets. The three banking agencies employ uniform 
leverage standards, while the OTS has established, pursuant to FIRREA, 
a somewhat different standard. On October 27, 1997, the agencies issued 
for public comment a proposal that would eliminate these differences.
    All of the agencies view the risk-based capital standards as a 
minimum supervisory benchmark. In part, this is because the risk-based 
capital framework focuses primarily on credit risk; it does not take 
full or explicit account of certain other banking risks, such as 
exposure to changes in interest rates. The full range of risks to which 
depository institutions are exposed are reviewed and evaluated 
carefully during on-site examinations. In view of these risks, most 
banking organizations are expected to, and generally do, maintain 
capital levels well above the minimum risk-based and leverage capital 
requirements.
    The staffs of the agencies meet regularly to identify and address 
differences and inconsistencies in their capital standards. The 
agencies are committed to continuing this process in an effort to 
achieve full uniformity in their capital standards. In addition, the 
agencies have considered the remaining differences as part of a 
regulatory review undertaken to comply with Section 303 of the Riegle 
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Riegle 
Act), which specifies that the agencies ``make uniform all regulations 
and guidelines implementing common statutory or supervisory policies.''

Efforts To Achieve Uniformity

Leverage Capital Ratios
    The three banking agencies employ a leverage standard based upon 
the common definition of Tier 1 capital contained in their risk-based 
capital guidelines. These standards, established in the second half of 
1990 and in early 1991, require the most highly-rated institutions to 
meet a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 3 percent. For all other 
institutions, these standards generally require an additional cushion 
of at least 100 to 200 basis points, i.e., a minimum leverage ratio of 
at least 4 to 5 percent, depending upon an organization's financial 
condition. As required by FIRREA, the OTS has established a 3

[[Page 3899]]

percent core capital ratio and a 1.5 percent tangible capital leverage 
requirement for thrift institutions. Certain adjustments discussed in 
this report apply to the core capital definition used by savings 
associations.
    On October 27, 1997, the four agencies issued a proposal for public 
comment addressing the leverage standards (62 FR 55686). Under the 
proposal, institutions rated a composite 1 under the Uniform Financial 
Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) \3\ would be subject to a minimum 
3.0 percent leverage ratio and all other institutions would be subject 
to a minimum 4.0 percent leverage ratio. This change would simplify and 
streamline the Board's, FDIC's, and OCC's leverage rules. In addition, 
changes proposed by the OTS, if adopted, would make all the agencies' 
rules uniform. The comment period for the proposal ended on December 
26, 1997. Agency staffs intend to issue a final amendment in early 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The UFIRS is used by supervisors to summarize their 
evaluations of the strength and soundness of financial institutions 
in a comprehensive and uniform manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efforts to Incorporate Non-Credit Risks
    The Federal Reserve has been working with the other U.S. banking 
agencies and with regulatory authorities abroad to develop methods of 
measuring certain market and price risks and determining appropriate 
capital standards for these risks. These efforts have related to 
interest rate risk arising from all activities of a bank and to market 
risk associated principally with an institution's trading activities.
    Regarding domestic efforts, the banking agencies have, for several 
years, been working to develop capital standards pertaining to interest 
rate risk. In June 1996, the U.S. banking agencies issued a joint 
policy statement describing a common framework for the supervision of 
interest rate risk in banking organizations. It calls for a review of 
the qualitative characteristics and adequacy of an institution's 
interest rate risk management, as well as an assessment of risk 
relative to its earnings and the economic value of its capital. The 
framework is consistent with 1995 revisions to the U.S. risk-based 
capital rules that incorporated the exposure of that economic value to 
changes in interest rates as an important element in the evaluation of 
capital adequacy. In September 1997, the Basle Supervisors Committee, 
with the agreement of the G-10 governors, released a paper, based on 
the U.S. joint policy statement, that contains a set of principles for 
the management of interest rate risk.
    In 1995 the Basle Supervisors Committee issued an amendment to the 
Basle Accord that requires internationally-active banks to hold capital 
against market risk exposure. The FRB, FDIC and OCC amended their 
respective risk-based capital guidelines in 1996 to implement the 
amendment to the Accord. Under the agencies' guidelines, affected 
institutions must use an internal value-at-risk model to measure market 
risk and calculate corresponding capital requirements. The market risk 
rules become mandatory for certain institutions in January 1998. The 
OTS does not intend, at this time, to issue a rule on market risk since 
the savings institutions they supervise do not have significant levels 
of trading activity.
    As mentioned in the introduction, the agencies have been meeting to 
fulfill the requirements of Section 303 of the Riegle Act that calls 
for uniform rules and guidelines. In this regard, in October 1997, the 
agencies issued for public comment a proposal that would eliminate 
existing minor differences among the agencies' risk-based capital 
treatment for the following assets: presold residential properties, 
junior liens on 1- to 4-family residential properties, and banks' 
holdings of mutual funds. In addition, the agencies worked together on 
the following capital issues.
Recourse
    The agencies published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1997, 
(62 FR 5994), uniform, proposed rules that would use credit ratings to 
match the risk-based capital assessment more closely to an 
institution's relative risk of loss in certain asset securitizations.
Unrealized Gains on Certain Equity Securities
    In October 1997 the agencies issued for public comment an 
interagency proposal that would permit institutions to include in Tier 
2 capital up to 45 percent of unrealized gains on certain available-
for-sale equity securities (62 FR 55682).
Capital Impact of Recent Changes to Accounting Standards
    From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 
issues new and modified financial accounting standards. The adoption of 
some of these standards for regulatory reporting purposes has the 
potential of affecting the definition and calculation of regulatory 
capital. Accordingly, the staffs of the agencies work together to 
propose uniform regulatory capital responses to such accounting 
changes. Over this past year, the agencies have dealt with certain 
capital effects of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) No. 
125, ``Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and 
Extinguishments of Liabilities'' which supersedes FAS No. 122, 
``Accounting for Mortgages Servicing Rights.'' FAS 125, ``Accounting 
for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of 
Liabilities.''
    The agencies issued a proposal on August 4, 1997, to amend their 
capital standards to address the treatment of servicing assets on both 
mortgage assets and financial assets other than mortgages (62 FR 
42006). The public comment period ended on October 3, 1997. The 
proposed rule reflects changes in accounting standards for servicing 
assets made in FAS 125. FAS 125 extended the accounting treatment for 
mortgage servicing to servicing on all financial assets. The proposed 
amendment would raise the capital limitation on the sum of all mortgage 
servicing assets and purchased credit card relationships from 50 
percent of Tier 1 capital to 100 percent of Tier 1 capital. 
Furthermore, servicing assets on financial assets other than mortgages 
would be deducted from Tier 1 capital. A final rule should be in place 
in the first part of 1998.

Capital Differences

    Differences among the risk-based capital standards of the OTS and 
the three banking agencies are discussed below.
Certain Collateral Transactions
    The four agencies, on August 16, 1996, published a joint proposed 
rulemaking that would, if implemented, eliminate capital differences 
among the agencies' risk-based capital treatment for collateralized 
transactions (61 FR 42565).
    The Federal Reserve permits certain collateralized transactions to 
be risk-weighted at zero percent. This preferential treatment is 
available only for claims fully collateralized by cash on deposit in 
the bank or by securities issued or guaranteed by OECD central 
governments or U.S. government agencies. A positive margin of 
collateral must be maintained on a daily basis fully taking into 
account any change in the banking organization's exposure to the 
obligor or counterparty under a claim in relation to the market value 
of the collateral held in support of that claim. Other collateralized 
claims, or

[[Page 3900]]

portions thereof, are risk-weighted at 20 percent.
    The OCC permits portions of claims collateralized by cash or OECD 
government securities to receive a zero percent risk weight, provided 
that the collateral is marked to market daily and a positive margin is 
maintained. The FDIC's and OTS's rules permit portions of claims 
collateralized by cash or OECD government securities to receive a 20 
percent risk weight.
    Under the agencies' proposed rule, portions of claims 
collateralized by cash or OECD government securities could be assigned 
a zero percent risk weight, provided the transactions meet certain 
criteria, which would be uniform among the agencies. Agency staffs 
intend to finalize the outstanding proposal in early 1998.
FSLIC/FDIC--Covered Assets (Assets Subject to Guarantee Arrangements by 
the FSLIC or FDIC)
    The three banking agencies generally place these assets in the 20 
percent risk category, the same category to which claims on depository 
institutions and government-sponsored agencies are assigned. The OTS 
places these assets in the zero percent risk category.
Limitation of Subordinated Debt and Limited-life Preferred Stock
    The three banking agencies limit the amount of subordinated debt 
and limited-life preferred stock that may be included in Tier 2 capital 
to 50 percent of Tier 1 capital. In addition, maturing capital 
instruments must be discounted by 20 percent in search of the last five 
years prior to maturity. The OTS has no limitation on the total amount 
of limited-life preferred stock or maturing capital instruments that 
may be included within Tier 2 capital. In addition, the OTS allows 
savings institutions the option of: (1) discounting maturing capital 
instruments issued on or after November 7, 1989, by 20 percent a year 
over the last 5 years of their term; or (2) including the full amount 
of such instruments provided that the amount maturing in any of the 
next seven years does not exceed 20 percent of the thrift's total 
capital.
Subsidiaries
    Consistent with the Basle Accord and long-standing supervisory 
practices, the three banking agencies generally consolidate all 
significant majority-owned subsidiaries of the parent organization for 
capital purposes. This consolidation assures that the capital 
requirements are related to all of the risks to which the banking 
organization is exposed. As with most other bank subsidiaries, banking 
and finance subsidiaries generally are consolidated for regulatory 
capital purposes. However, in cases where banking and finance 
subsidiaries are not consolidated, the Federal Reserve, consistent with 
the Basle Accord, generally deducts investments in such subsidiaries in 
determining the adequacy of the parent bank's capital.
    The Federal Reserve's risk-based capital guidelines provide a 
degree of flexibility in the capital treatment of unconsolidated 
subsidiaries (other than banking and finance subsidiaries) and 
investments in joint ventures and associated companies. For example, 
the Federal Reserve may deduct investments in such subsidiaries from an 
organization's capital, may apply an appropriate risk-weighted capital 
charge against the proportionate share of the assets of the entity, may 
require a line-by-line consolidation of the entity, or otherwise may 
require that the parent organization maintain a level of capital above 
the minimum standard that is sufficient to compensate for any risk 
associated with the investment.
    The guidelines also permit the deduction of investments in 
subsidiaries that, while consolidated for accounting purposes, are not 
consolidated for certain specified supervisory or regulatory purposes. 
For example, the Federal Reserve deducts investments in, and unsecured 
advances to, Section 20 securities subsidiaries from the parent bank 
holding company's capital. The FDIC accords similar treatment to 
securities subsidiaries of state nonmember banks established pursuant 
to Section 337.4 of the FDIC regulations.
    Similarly, in accordance with Section 325.5(f) of the FDIC 
regulations, a state nonmember bank must deduct investments in, and 
extensions of credit to, certain mortgage banking subsidiaries in 
computing the parent bank's capital. The Federal Reserve does not have 
a similar requirement with regard to mortgage banking subsidiaries. The 
OCC does not have requirements dealing specifically with the capital 
treatment of either mortgage banking or securities subsidiaries. The 
OCC, however, does reserve the right to require a national bank, on a 
case-by-case basis, to deduct from capital investments in, and 
extensions of credit to, any nonbanking subsidiary.
    The deduction of investments in subsidiaries from the parent's 
capital is designed to ensure that the capital supporting the 
subsidiary is not also used as the basis of further leveraging and 
risk-taking by the parent banking organization. In deducting 
investments in, and advances to, certain subsidiaries from the parent's 
capital, the Federal Reserve expects the parent banking organization to 
meet or exceed minimum regulatory capital standards without reliance on 
the capital invested in the particular subsidiary. In assessing the 
overall capital adequacy of banking organizations, the Federal Reserve 
may also consider the organization's fully consolidated capital 
position.
    Under the OTS capital guidelines, a distinction, mandated by 
FIRREA, is drawn between subsidiaries that are engaged in activities 
permissible for national banks and subsidiaries that are engaged in 
``impermissible'' activities for national banks. Subsidiaries of thrift 
institutions that engage only inpermissible activities are consolidated 
on a line-by-line basis if majority-owned and on a pro rata basis if 
ownership is between 5 and 50 percent. As a general rule, investments, 
including loans, in subsidiaries that engage in impermissible 
activities are deducted in determining the capital adequacy of the 
parent.
Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS)
    The three banking agencies, in general, place privately-issued MBS 
in a risk category appropriate to the underlying assets but in no case 
to the zero percent risk category. In the case of privately-issued MBS 
where the direct underlying assets are mortgages, this treatment 
generally results in a risk weight of 50 percent or 100 percent. 
Privately-issued MBS that have government agency or government-
sponsored agency securities as their direct underlying assets are 
generally assigned to the 20 percent risk category.
    The OTS assigns privately-issued high quality mortgage-related 
securities to the 20 percent risk category. These are, generally, 
privately-issued MBS with AA or better investment ratings.
    Both the banking and thrift agencies automatically assign to the 
100 percent risk weight category certain MBS, including interest-only 
strips, residuals, and similar instruments that can absorb more than 
their pro rata share of loss.
Agricultural Loan Loss Amortization
    In the computation of regulatory capital, those banks accepted into 
the agricultural loan loss amortization program pursuant to Title VIII 
of the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 are permitted to defer 
and amortize losses incurred on agricultural loans between January 1, 
1984 and December 31, 1991. The program also applies to losses incurred 
between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 1991, as a result of 
reappraisals and sales of

[[Page 3901]]

agricultural Other Real Estate Owned (OREO) and agricultural personal 
property. These loans must be fully amortized over a period not to 
exceed seven years and, in any case, must be fully amortized by year-
end 1998. Savings institutions are not eligible to participate in the 
agricultural loan loss amortization program established by this 
statute.
Treatment of Junior Liens on 1- to 4-Family Residential Properties
    In some cases, a banking organization may make two loans on a 
single residential property, one secured by a first lien, the other by 
a second lien. In such a situation, the Federal Reserve views these two 
transactions as a single lien, provided there are no intervening liens. 
The total amount of these transactions would be assigned to either the 
50 percent or the 100 percent risk category depending upon whether 
certain other criteria are met.
    One criterion is that the loan must be made in accordance with 
prudent underwriting standards, including an appropriate ratio of the 
current loan balance to the value of the property (the loan-to-value 
ratio or LTV). When considering whether a loan is consistent with 
prudent underwriting standards, the Federal Reserve evaluates the LTV 
ratio based on the combined loan amount. If the combined loan amount 
satisfies prudent underwriting standards, both the first and second 
lien are assigned to the 50 percent risk category. The FDIC also 
combines the first and second liens to determine the appropriateness of 
the LTV ratio, but it applies the risk weights differently than the 
Federal Reserve. If the LTV ratio based on the combined loan amount 
satisfies prudent underwriting standards, the FDIC risk weights the 
first lien at 50 percent and the second lien at 100 percent, otherwise 
both liens are risk weighted at 100 percent. The OCC treats all first 
and second liens separately, with qualifying first liens risk weighted 
at 50 percent and non-qualifying first liens and all second liens risk 
weighted at 100 percent. The OTS has interpreted its rule to treat 
first and second liens to a single borrower as a single extension of 
credit, similar to the Federal Reserve.
    Under the proposal issued by the agencies in October 1997, the 
agencies would follow the OCC capital treatment for first and second 
liens.
Pledged Deposits and Nonwithdrawable Accounts
    The capital guidelines of the OTS permit thrift institutions to 
include in capital certain pledged deposits and nonwithdrawable 
accounts that meet the criteria of the OTS. Income Capital Certificates 
and Mutual Capital Certificates held by the OTS may also be included in 
capital by thrift institutions. These instruments are not relevant to 
commercial banks, and, therefore, they are not addressed in the banking 
agencies' capital rules.
Construction Loans on Presold Residential Property
    The agencies all assign a qualifying loan to a builder to finance 
the construction of a presold 1- to 4-family residential property to 
the 50 percent risk category provided certain conditions are satisfied. 
The Federal Reserve and the FDIC permit a 50 percent risk weight once 
the residential property is sold, whether the sale occurs before or 
after the construction loan has been made. The OCC and the OTS permit 
the 50 percent risk weight treatment only if the property is sold to an 
individual who will occupy the residence upon completion of 
construction before the extension of credit to the builder.
    The agencies' October proposal set forth the treatment followed by 
the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.
Mutual Funds
    The three banking agencies generally assign all of a bank's holding 
in a mutual fund to the risk category appropriate to the highest risk 
asset that a particular mutual fund is permitted to hold under its 
operating rules. The OCC also permits, on a case-by-case basis, an 
institution's investment to be allocated on a pro rata basis among the 
risk categories based on the percentages of a portfolio authorized to 
be invested in a particular risk weight category. The OTS applies a 
capital charge appropriate to the riskiest asset that a mutual fund is 
actually holding at a particular time. The OTS also permits, on a case-
by-case basis pro rata allocation among risk categories based on the 
fund's actual holdings. All of the agencies' rules provide that the 
minimum risk weight for investment in mutual funds is 20 percent.
    The agencies have proposed following the banking agencies' general 
treatment and permitting institutions, at their option, to assign such 
investment on a pro rata basis according to the investment limits in 
the mutual fund prospectus.

Accounting Standards

    Over the years, the three banking agencies, under the auspices of 
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), have 
developed Uniform Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for 
all commercial banks and FDIC-supervised savings banks. The reporting 
standards followed by the three banking agencies for recognition and 
measuring purposes are consistent with generally accepted accounting 
principles (GAAP). The agencies adopted GAAP as the reporting basis for 
the Call Report, effective for March 1997 reports. The adoption of GAAP 
for Call Report purposes eliminated the differences in accounting 
standards among the agencies that were set forth in previous reports to 
Congress. Thus, there are no material differences in regulatory 
accounting standards for regulatory reports filed with the federal 
banking agencies by commercial banks, savings banks, and savings 
associations.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, January 21, 1998.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-1812 Filed 1-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P