Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41559

1See 65 FR at 12913 (provisions describing the

certifications that the notice must contain).

2See, e.g., OCC Corporate Decision No. 97–54

(June 26, 1997); OCC Interpretive Letter No. 692,

reprinted in [1995–1996 Transfer Binder] Fed.

Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 81,007 (Nov. 1, 1995); OCC

Interpretive Letter No. 694, reprinted in [1995–1996

Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶

81,009 (Dec. 13, 1995); OCC Interpretive Letter No.

705, reprinted in [1995–1996 Transfer Binder] Fed.

Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 81,020 (October 25, 1995);

OCC Interpretive Letter No. 711, reprinted in [1995–

1996 Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH)

¶ 81–026 (Feb. 23, 1996).

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined upon good cause

that it is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest to

give preliminary notice prior to putting

this rule into effect, and that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) This action reduces the

current assessment rate for fresh Bartlett

pears; (2) the 2000–2001 fiscal period

begins on July 1, 2000, and the

marketing order requires that the rate of

assessment for each fiscal period apply

to all assessable fresh Bartlett pears

handled during such fiscal period; (3)

handlers are aware of this action which

was unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and is

similar to other assessment rate actions

issued in past years; and (4) this interim

final rule provides a 60-day comment

period, and all comments timely

received will be considered prior to

finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 931

Marketing agreements, Pears,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 931 is amended as

follows:

PART 931—FRESH BARTLETT PEARS

GROWN IN OREGON AND

WASHINGTON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 931 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 931.231 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 931.231 Assessment rate.

On and after July 1, 2000, an

assessment rate of $0.02 per western

standard pear box is established for the

Northwest Fresh Bartlett Pear Marketing

Committee.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–16990 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Part 5

[Docket No. 00–14]

RIN 1557–AB86

Other Equity Investments

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) is making a

technical correction to its regulation on

non-controlling equity investments to

clarify that a national bank that wishes

to use the notice procedure to make a

non-controlling investment in an

enterprise must certify that its loss

exposure is limited, as a legal and

accounting matter, and that it does not

have open-ended liability for the

obligations of the enterprise.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director, or

Karl Betz, Attorney, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities Division, (202)

874–5090, Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency, 250 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC, 20219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description of Change

On March 10, 2000 the OCC

published a final rule titled ‘‘Financial

Subsidiaries and Operating

Subsidiaries.’’ 65 FR 12905. The final

rule amended 12 CFR 5.36, ‘‘Other

equity investments,’’ to provide a

streamlined, after-the-fact notice

procedure for national banks making

non-controlling investments in

enterprises engaging in specified

activities. As part of the notice process,

the applicant must certify that it has

satisfied the standards and conditions

that the OCC applies to investments of

this type.1 These standards and

conditions are established by OCC

precedents approving non-controlling

investments.2

The final rule omitted from the notice

procedure one standard contained in

these precedents. In order to clarify that

all of the standards and conditions

contained in OCC precedent approving

non-controlling investments apply to

non-controlling investments that are

eligible for the after-the-fact notice

procedure, we are amending § 5.36(e) to

conform the requirements of the notice

procedure with those of the precedents

on which it is based. Accordingly, this

rule adds the requirement that a

national bank certify that its loss

exposure is limited, as a legal and

accounting matter, and that the bank

does not have open-ended unlimited

liability for the obligations of the

enterprise. The rule is published in final

form and takes effect immediately upon

publication in the Federal Register.

Administrative Procedure Act—Notice

and Comment

Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the OCC finds good

cause for dispensing with the

requirements for notice and an

opportunity for public comment that the

APA would otherwise require. This

technical correction conforms the rule

with the governing standards that have

been available in published OCC

precedent for some time. By removing

an apparent inconsistency with the

precedents in this area, the rule avoids

the confusion, and the potential for the

filing of incomplete notices, that may

otherwise occur when banks compare

the requirements of the rule with those

in the precedents.

Effective Date

The APA generally requires that a

final rule take effect 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register. 5

U.S.C. 553(d). Similarly, section 302 of

the Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(CDRI Act) generally requires that a final

rule issued by a Federal banking agency

take effect on the first day of the first

calendar quarter that begins on or after

the date on which the regulation is

published in final form. 12 U.S.C.

4802(b)(1). Both requirements are

subject to a good cause exception.

For the reasons previously explained,

the OCC finds good cause for making

this amendment to 12 CFR 5.36(e)

effective immediately upon publication.

Delaying the effective date of the

amendment will delay national banks’

ability to rely with certainty on the

notice process for non-controlling

investments and thus impede the rule’s

purpose of facilitating national banks’

ability to make non-controlling

41560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1Finance Board Resolution No. 99–65 (Dec. 14,

1999).

investments that comport with the

standards the OCC has adopted in its

published precedents.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) does not apply to a

rulemaking where a general notice of

proposed rulemaking is not required. 5

U.S.C. 603 and 604. As noted

previously, the OCC has determined

that it is not necessary to publish a

notice of proposed rulemaking for this

final rule. Accordingly, the RFA’s

requirements relating to an initial and

final regulatory flexibility analysis are

not applicable. In any event, however,

since this final rule merely adds one

additional element to the notice that the

rule permits a national bank to file, this

final rule does not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Executive Order 12866

The Comptroller of the Currency has

determined that this final rule is not a

significant regulatory action for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995, Public Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48

(UMA), applies only when an agency is

required to issue a general notice of

proposed rulemaking or a final rule for

which the agency published a general

notice of proposed rulemaking (2 U.S.C.

1532). As noted previously, the OCC has

determined, for good cause, that notice

and comment is unnecessary.

Accordingly, the UMA does not require

a budgetary impact analysis.

Nevertheless, the OCC has determined

that this final rule will not result in

expenditures by State, local, and tribal

governments, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared

a budgetary impact statement or

specifically addressed the regulatory

activities considered.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 5

Administrative practice and

procedure, National banks, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Securities.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the OCC amends chapter I of

title 12 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 5—RULES, POLICIES, AND

PROCEDURES FOR CORPORATE

ACTIVITIES

1. The authority citation for part 5

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 93a; and

section 5136A of the Revised Statutes, (12

U.S.C. 24a).

2. Section 5.36 is amended by:

A. Redesignating paragraph (e)(7) as

(e)(8);

B. Removing ‘‘and’’ from the end of

paragraph (e)(6); and

C. Adding a new paragraph (e)(7) to

read as follows:

§ 5.36 Other equity investments.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(7) Certify that the bank’s loss

exposure is limited, as a legal and

accounting matter, and the bank does

not have open-ended liability for the

obligations of the enterprise; and

* * * * *

Dated: June 27, 2000

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 00–17008 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

12 CFR Part 915

[No. 2000–31]

RIN 3069–AB00

Election of Federal Home Loan Bank

Directors

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is amending its

regulations to address the status of the

1999 and 2000 elections of directors at

each Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank),

and to provide standards regarding the

manner in which the Banks must stagger

their boards. The final rule also

addresses the consequences to an

incumbent director whose directorship

is eliminated or is redesignated as

representing Bank members located in a

different state before the end of his or

her term.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is

effective on August 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil

R. Crowley, Deputy General Counsel,

(202) 408–2990, Federal Housing

Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 23, 2000, the Finance

Board approved a proposed rule to

implement provisions of the GrammLeach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106–102,

133 Stat. 1338, 1453 (Nov. 12, 1999)

(GLB Act) regarding the term of office of

Bank directors. 65 FR 17458 (April 3,

2000). The GLB Act amended Section

7(d) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act

(Bank Act) to establish uniform threeyear terms for the appointed and elected

directors of the Banks and required that

the terms of those directors first elected

or appointed after enactment of the GLB

Act be adjusted as necessary to stagger

the board of each Bank into three classes

of approximately equal size. 12 U.S.C.

1427(d), as amended. Under prior law

the appointed directors had served for

four-year terms and the elected directors

had served for two-year terms. Because

the GLB Act amendments took effect

upon enactment, they had the effect of

extending the terms of all incumbent

elected directors by one year. As a result

of the extension of the terms of office by

the GLB Act, on January 1, 2000, when

the two-year terms of the elected

directors otherwise would have expired,

there were no open elected

directorships at any of the Banks.

During 1999, each Bank had conducted

elections in which the members voted to

elect approximately one-half of the

elected directors of the Bank, but the

candidates elected could not assume

office on January 1, 2000 as a

consequence of the GLB Act

amendments. In previously addressing

the effect of the GLB Act on the terms

of Bank directorships, the Finance

Board expressed its intent to authorize

the board of directors of each Bank to

decide whether to conduct new

elections in 2000 or to adopt the

tabulation of votes cast in the 1999

elections for use in the 2000 elections.1

The Finance Board indicated that it

would establish the criteria by which

the board of each Bank could make that

decision, which was one issue that the

Finance Board had addressed in the

proposed rulemaking. The proposed

rule also addressed the manner in

which the terms of the directors

assuming office after November 12, 1999

were to be adjusted in order to achieve

the one-third staggering required by the

GLB Act. The final rule addresses both

of those issues, substantially as

proposed.