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,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40489

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,

Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305–

5586.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wade Carpenter, Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Federal Aviation

Administration, P.O. Box 20636,

Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)

305–5581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 97–

ASO–10.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received before the specified closing

date for comments will be considered

before taking action on the proposed

rule. The proposed contained in this

notice may be changed in light of

comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel for Southern

Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337,

both before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contract with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Manager,

Airspace Branch, ASO–520, Air Traffic

Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,

Georgia 30320. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRMs should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to Part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

amend the Class E airspace area at

Anniston, AL. GPS RWY 3 and RWY 15

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 AGL is needed to

accommodate these SIAPs, and for IFR

operations at these airports and the

Anniston Metropolitan Airport. Class E

airspace designations for airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface are published in

Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9D

dated September 4, 1996, and effective

September 16, 1996, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (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) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 4, 1996, and effective

September 16, 1996, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet above the

surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO AL E5 Anniston, AL [Revised]

Anniston Metropolitan Airport, AL

(lat. 33°35′17′′ N, long. 85°51′29′′ W)

Talladega Municipal Airport

(lat. 33°34′12′′ N, long. 86°03′04′′ W)

St. Clair County Airport

(lat. 33°33′32′′ N, long. 86°14′57′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 12-mile radius

of Anniston Metropolitan Airport and within

a 9.5-mile radius of Talladega Municipal

Airport and within a 11.5 mile radius of St.

Clair County Airport, excluding that airspace

within Restricted Area R–2101 when the

restricted area is active.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15,

1997.

Wade T. Carpenter,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 97–19859 Filed 7–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 211

[Docket No. 97N–0300]

Current Good Manufacturing Practice

in Manufacturing, Processing, Packing,

or Holding of Drugs; Revision of

Certain Labeling Controls

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is proposing to

amend the packaging and labeling

control provisions of the current good

manufacturing practice (CGMP)

regulations for human and veterinary

drug products by limiting the

application of special control

procedures for the use of cut labeling to

immediate container labels, individual

unit cartons, or multiunit cartons

containing immediate containers that

are not packaged in individual unit

cartons. FDA is also proposing to permit

the use of any automated technique,