Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40487

The committee discussed alternatives

to this action. The committee discussed

eliminating shipments of size 56

grapefruit all together. Several members

expressed that there is a market for size

56 grapefruit. Members favored the

percentage rule recommended because

it would supply a sufficient quantity of

small sizes should there be a demand

for size 56. Therefore, the motion to

eliminate size 56 was rejected. Another

alternative discussed was to do nothing.

However, the committee rejected this

option, taking in account that returns

would remain stagnant without action.

This rule would change the

requirements under the Florida citrus

marketing order. Handlers utilizing the

flexibility of the loan and transfer

aspects of this action would be required

to submit a form to the committee. The

rule would increase the reporting

burden on approximately 80 handlers of

red seedless grapefruit who would be

taking about 0.03 hour to complete each

report regarding allotment loans or

transfers. The information collection

requirements contained in this section

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13)

and assigned OMB number 0581–0094.

As with all Federal marketing order

programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap or conflict with this

proposed rule. However, red seedless

grapefruit must meet the requirements

as specified in the U.S. Standards for

Grades of Florida Grapefruit (7 CFR

51.760 through 51.784) issued under the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946

(7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627).

In addition, the committee’s meeting

was widely publicized throughout the

citrus industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the May 28, 1997,

meeting was a public meeting and all

entities, both large and small, were able

to express views on this issue.

Interested persons are invited to submit

information on the regulatory and

informational impacts of this action on

small businesses.

A 15-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed

appropriate because this rule would

need to be in place as soon as possible

since handlers will begin shipping

grapefruit in September. In addition,

because of the nature of this rule,

handlers need time to consider their

allotment and how best to service their

customers. Also, the industry has been

discussing this issue for some time. The

committee has kept the industry well

informed on this issue. It has also been

widely discussed at various industry

and association meetings. Interested

persons have had time to determine and

express their positions. All written

comments timely received will be

considered before a final determination

is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements,

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT,

TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS

GROWN IN FLORIDA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 905 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In § 905.306, paragraphs (a) and (b),

the word ‘‘During’’ is removed and the

words ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in

section 905.601, during’’ are added in

its place.

3. A new § 905.601 is added to read

as follows:

§ 905.601 Red seedless grapefruit

regulation 101.

The schedule below establishes the

weekly percentages to be used to

calculate each handler’s weekly

allotment of small sizes. If the minimum

size in effect under section 905.306 for

red seedless grapefruit is size 56,

handlers can fill their allotment with

size 56, size 48, or a combination of the

two sizes such that the total of these

shipments are within the established

weekly limits. If the minimum size in

effect under section 905.306 for red

seedless grapefruit is 48, handlers can

fill their allotment with size 48 red

seedless grapefruit such that the total of

these shipments are within the

established weekly limits. The weekly

percentages for sizes 48 and/or 56 red

seedless grapefruit grown in Florida,

which may be handled during the

specified weeks are as follows:

Week

Weekly

percentage

(a) 9/15/97 through 9/21/97 ............ 25

(b) 9/22/97 through 9/28/97 ............ 25

(c) 9/29/97 through 10/5/97 ............ 25

Week

Weekly

percentage

(d) 10/6/97 through 10/12/97 .......... 25

(e) 10/13/97 through 10/19/97 ........ 25

(f) 10/20/97 through 10/26/97 ......... 25

(g) 10/27/97 through 11/2/97 .......... 25

(h) 11/3/97 through 11/9/97 ............ 25

(i) 11/10/97 through 11/16/97 ......... 25

(j) 11/17/97 through 11/23/97 ......... 25

(k) 11/24/97 through 11/30/97 ........ 25

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Ronald L. Cioffi,

Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20034 Filed 7–25–97; 1:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 312

RIN 3064–AC01

Prevention of Deposit Shifting

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is withdrawing a

proposed rule to implement a statute

prohibiting the shifting of deposits

insured under the Savings Association

Insurance Fund (SAIF) to deposits

insured under the Bank Insurance Fund

(BIF) for the purpose of evading the

assessment rates applicable to SAIF

deposits. The FDIC is taking this action

in response to comments received on

the proposed rule, which was published

in the Federal Register on February 11,

1997.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

July 29, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph A. DiNuzzo, Counsel, (202) 898–

7349, Legal Division; or George Hanc,

Associate Director, Division of Research

and Statistics, (202) 898–8719, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation,

Washington, D. C. 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Funds Act and the Deposit

Shifting Statute

A provision of the Deposit Insurance

Funds Act of 1996 (Funds Act) requires

the Comptroller of the Currency, the

Board of Directors of the FDIC, the

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, and the Director of the

Office of Thrift Supervision (federal

banking agencies) to take ‘‘appropriate

actions’’ to prevent insured depository

institutions and holding companies
40488 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1 Although currently the range of risk-based

assessments for BIF-assessable and SAIF-assessable

deposits is the same, a higher assessment payable

to the Financing Corporation must be paid on SAIFassessable deposits. Thus, the overall assessment is

higher for SAIF-assessable deposits than for BIFassessable deposits.

2Pursuant to this requirement, the FDIC issued a

final rule imposing a special assessment on

institutions holding SAIF-assessable deposits in an

amount sufficient to increase the SAIF reserve ratio

to the designated reserve ratio of 1.25 percent as of

October 1, 1996. 61 FR 53834 (Oct. 16, 1996), to be

codified at 12 CFR 327.41.

from ‘‘facilitating or encouraging’’ the

shifting of deposits from SAIFassessable deposits to BIF-assessable

deposits for the purpose of evading the

assessments applicable to SAIFassessable deposits.1 Pub. L. 104–208,

110 Stat. 3009–485, section 2703(d).

This statutory prohibition on deposit

shifting (the deposit shifting statute)

expressly authorizes the FDIC to issue

regulations, including regulations

defining terms used in the statute, to

prevent the shifting of deposits. The

deposit shifting statute terminates on

the earlier of December 31, 1999, or the

date on which the last federally

chartered savings association ceases to

exist.

The Funds Act was enacted as part of

the Economic Growth and Regulatory

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, Pub.

L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–479 through

3009–498, sections 2701—2711, and

became effective September 30, 1996.

The Funds Act provided for the

capitalization of the SAIF through a

special assessment on all depository

institutions that hold SAIF-assessable

deposits.2

II. The Proposed Rule

In February 1997 the FDIC issued a

proposed rule to implement the deposit

shifting statute. 62 FR 6139 (Feb. 11,

1997). The proposed rule consisted of

two basic provisions. The first reiterated

the requirement in the statute that the

respective federal banking agency deny

applications and object to notices filed

by depository institutions or depository

institution holding companies if the

purpose of the underlying transaction

was to evade assessments payable on

SAIF-assessable deposits. The second

provision of the proposed rule would

have established a presumption under

which entrance and exit fees would be

imposed upon depository institutions

for deposits that are shifted from SAIFassessable deposits to BIF-assessable

deposits in violation of the deposit

shifting statute.

III. Comments on the Proposed Rule

The comment period for the proposed

rule closed on April 14, 1997. The FDIC

received fifteen comments on the

proposal. Nine of the comments were

from industry trade groups, four from

community banks, one from a bank

holding company and one from a

savings and loan holding company.

Nine of the comments opposed the

proposed rule. They argued, in essence,

that a regulation is unnecessary given

that SAIF is now capitalized and the

assessment rate differential between BIF

and SAIF institutions is not significant.

Some who opposed the proposed rule

contended that it is unworkably vague,

particularly because it does not define

key terms, such as ‘‘deposit shifting’’

and ‘‘ordinary course of business.’’

Of the national industry trade groups,

one said that a regulation is not

necessary and, instead, the agencies

should just continue to monitor deposit

shifting. Another commented that a

regulation would not be necessary, but

that the FDIC should consider issuing a

policy statement to provide guidance to

the industry. A third national trade

group said the regulation would be an

appropriate measure to enforce the

deposit shifting statue. One state

industry trade association voiced

support for the proposed rule. Five

others commented that a regulation was

unnecessary.

The four community banks all

commented that the regulation would be

an appropriate means to enforce the

statute. The bank holding company that

commented detailed five areas of

concern with the proposed rule,

essentially citing a ‘‘vagueness’’

problem. The comment filed by the

savings and loan holding company

alleged, among other things, that the

rule would be illegal under the U.S.

Constitution and the Administrative

Procedure Act.

IV. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule

Based on a review of the comments

and the FDIC’s internal review of the

applicable issues, the Board of Directors

of the FDIC has decided to withdraw the

proposed rule. The Board agrees with

the majority of those who commented

that the deposit shifting statute can and

should be enforced on a case-by case

basis and, thus, a regulation to

implement and enforce the statute is

unnecessary.

This decision is based on several

factors: (1) The diminished differential

between the assessments paid on BIFassessable deposits and SAIF-assessable

deposits; (2) the lack of evidence of any

significant, widespread deposit shifting

among depository institutions; (3) the

regulatory burden that might result from

the issuance of a final rule on deposit

shifting; and (4) the ability of the FDIC

and the other federal banking agencies

to enforce the deposit shifting statute on

a case-by-case basis through the

monitoring of any such activity by

reviewing quarterly financial reports

and by conducting on-site examinations,

if necessary.

The Board has decided, therefore, in

coordination with the other federal

banking agencies, that the deposit

shifting statute should be enforced on a

case-by-case basis. The FDIC, however,

will monitor the effectiveness of this

approach and, if necessary, reconsider

in the future whether a regulation is

needed to implement the deposit

shifting statute.

By the order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 22nd day

of July, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–19943 Filed 7–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–ASO–10]

Proposed Amendment to Class E

Airspace; Anniston, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend the Class E airspace area at

Anniston, AL. Global Positioning

System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 3 and

RWY 21 Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures (SIAPs) have been

developed for Talladega Municipal

Airport, and a GPS RWY 20 SIAP has

been developed for St. Clair County

Airport. Additional controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 feet Above

Ground Level (AGL) is needed to

accommodate these SIAPs, and for

Instrumental Flight Rules (IFR)

operations at these airports and the

Anniston Metropolitan Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

97–ASO–10, Manager, Airspace Branch,

ASO–520, 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,