Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices 27281

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Walter Francis, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location,

telephone number, and e-mail adress:

6E, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Crystal

Drive, Arlington, VA, (703) 308-6419,

fax: 703-308-4687, e-mail:

francis.walter@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability: Electronic

copies of this document and the draft

PR Notice also are available from the

EPA Home page at the Federal Register

- Environmental Documents entry for

this document under ‘‘Laws and

Regulations’’ (http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr/).

For Fax on Demand, use a faxphone

to call 202-401-0527 and select item

(6110) for a copy of this document and

the PR Notice.

I. Background

In the Federal Register of April 17,

1998 (63 FR 19256) (FRL–5780–7), EPA

published a notice of availability of the

draft PR Notice identified above. The

Agency solicited comments on proposed

guidance clarifying the criteria that

pesticide products must meet to be

eligible for the ‘‘treated articles

exemption’’ pursuant to 40 CFR

152.25(a). If, after reviewing any

comments, EPA determines that changes

to the Notice are warranted, the Agency

will revise the draft PR Notice prior to

release.

Following publication of the April 17,

1998 notice, the National Paint and

Coatings Association and the Treated

Articles Coalition requested that EPA

extend the comment period on the

proposed PR Notice to enable these and

other groups to more fully discuss these

provisions and to coordinate data and

information solicited from their member

constituencies. In this fashion, a more

comprehensive assessment of the

potential impacts of this proposal could

be determined.

In order to give all parties an

opportunity to respond more fully to the

proposed PR notice, this notice

announces that EPA is extending the

comment period. The new deadline for

receipt of comments is June 30, 1998.

Submit written comments to the address

given earlier in this document. Submit

electronic comments as noted in Unit II.

of this document.

II. Public Record and Electronic

Submissions

A record has been established for this

action under docket number ‘‘OPP–

00530’’ (including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Rm. 119 of the

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA.

The official record for this action, as

well as the public version, as described

above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record which will also include

all comments submitted in writing. The

official record is the paper record

maintained at the Virginia address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

or encryption. Comments will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1/

6.1 file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

‘‘OPP–00530.’’ Electronic comments on

this document may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Antimicrobial pesticides, Treated

articles exemption.

Dated: May 13, 1998.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–13211 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6014–1]

Internet Availability of Data in the

Sector Facility Indexing Project

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is announcing the

Internet release of data in the Sector

Facility Indexing Project (SFIP). The

SFIP is a community-right-to-know and

data integration pilot project that

provides environmental performance

data for facilities within five industrial

sectors. The industrial sectors profiled

within the SFIP are automobile

assembly; petroleum refining; pulp

manufacturing; iron and steel; and

primary smelting and refining of

aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc

(nonferrous metals).

DATES: An Internet website containing

the data in the SFIP was released on

May 1, 1998 and is currently available

to the public.

ADDRESSES: Data may be accessed

electronically via the Internet at the

following address: http://www.epa.gov/

oeca/sfi

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Lischinsky, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of

Compliance (2223–A), 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone:

(202) 564–2628, fax: (202) 564–0050; email: lischinsky.robert@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SFIP,

a pilot program developed by EPA,

integrates and provides public access to

more environmental information than

has ever before been available to the

public in one location. The SFIP profiles

approximately 650 facilities in five

industrial sectors. The goals of the SFIP

include the following: (1) Make

environmental information about

industrial facilities and regulatory

compliance more accessible to the

public; (2) expand the

comprehensiveness and improve the

accuracy of data for analyzing the

environmental track record of an

industrial sector; (3) provide industrial

and government stakeholders with

better analytical tools for permitting,

reporting, compliance, bench marking,

self-policing, and pollution prevention

purposes; and (4) help all stakeholders

take a more holistic, multi-media

approach to environmentally sound

performance. The five industrial sectors

chosen for the pilot stage of the SFIP are

automobile assembly; pulp

manufacturing; petroleum refining; iron

and steel production; and primary

smelting and refining of aluminum,

copper, lead, and zinc (nonferrous

metals). For each facility, the SFIP

provides information on its location,

production or production capacity,

surrounding population, permits held

under major environmental programs,

the number of inspections received,

record of compliance with federal
27282 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices

1For the convenience of the reader, the initial

reference to a provision of the FDI Act or interstate

branching legislation will be made to the citation,

as enacted, followed by the United States Code

citation. Thereafter, the provision will be referred

to by the section number contained in the United

States Code. For example, the initial citation of

section 27 of the FDI Act will be followed by the

United States Code citation (12 U.S.C. 1831d) and

the section will subsequently be referred to as

‘‘section 1831d’’.

2This opinion is not intended to address these

issues with regard to national banks. The Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency (‘‘OCC’’), which

has regulatory jurisdiction over national banks, has

issued several Interpretive Letters addressing these

issues, in the context of national banks and section

85. See, OCC Interpretive Letter No. 686, September

11, 1995, reprinted in [1995–1996 Transfer Binder]

Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) P 81–001 (‘‘Interpretive

Letter No. 686’’); OCC Interpretive Letter No. 707,

January 31, 1996, reprinted in [1995–1996 Transfer

Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) P 81–022

(‘‘Interpretive Letter No. 707’’); OCC Interpretive

Letter No. 782, May 21, 1997, reprinted in [Current

Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) P 81–209

(‘‘Interpretive Letter No. 782’’); OCC Interpretive

Letter No. 822, February 17, 1998, reprinted in

[Current Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) P 81–

265 (‘‘Interpretive Letter No. 822’’).

regulations, and any chemical releases,

transfers, and spills. Facility-specific

reports are available in the SFIP for

viewing and downloading. In addition

to gathering all this information into one

location for the first time, the SFIP is

unique in that it structures and

aggregates the data so a user can easily

view, compare, and analyze information

from different facilities. The SFIP

includes compliance and enforcement

information submitted to state and

federal regulators, as well as chemical

release information submitted under the

federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The SFIP also links data submitted to

state and federal agencies by facilities

regulated under the Clean Air Act, the

Clean Water Act, the Resource Recovery

and Conservation Act, and the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act. Finally, statistics

about the population around facilities

were taken from census reports, and

information about production was

gathered from sources outside EPA.

To link all these data, the SFIP uses

an interactive, high-speed data retrieval

and integration system developed by

EPA, the Integrated Data for

Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system.

EPA has been committed to providing

all stakeholders an opportunity to

comment formally on the SFIP in its

entirety, as well as to review the

project’s underlying data. Therefore,

from the onset of this project, the

Agency embarked upon an extensive

review and outreach process.

Stakeholders, including environmental

and community organizations, have

commented on the project. Each facility

included in the pilot project received a

copy of its records and was given an

opportunity to submit corrections. State

agencies also received the information

for review, since a large portion of the

data is provided to EPA by state

governments. EPA modified the data as

appropriate, based on these comments.

EPA will continue taking comments as

this pilot project evolves. The Agency

has set up an SFIP Hotline (617–520–

3015) and has also established a

‘‘comment page’’ on the SFIP website

for users to submit their comments

instantly.

In addition to releasing the data

electronically, EPA also will be

providing a hard copy summary report

of SFIP. The SFIP Progress Report is a

publication that provides aggregated,

pre-formatted information. A Notice of

Availability will be placed in the

Federal Register when it is ready for

distribution.

Dated: May 11, 1998.

Mamie Miller,

Branch Chief, Manufacturing Branch,

Manufacturing Energy & Transportation

Division, Office of Compliance.

[FR Doc. 98–13116 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

General Counsel’s Opinion No. 11,

Interest Charges by Interstate State

Banks

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of General Counsel’s

Opinion No. 11.

SUMMARY: The FDIC has received

inquiries regarding the application of

section 27 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act to State banks operating

interstate branches. This General

Counsel’s Opinion sets forth the Legal

Division’s conclusions regarding where

such banks are ‘‘located’’ for purposes of

section 27; when host state, as opposed

to home state, laws will provide the

appropriate interest rates for loans to

customers; how various functions

related to making loans to customers

should be defined and the impact that

they will have on the application of a

particular state’s interest rates to those

loans; and the need for appropriate

disclosure of the laws governing the

loan to bank customers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara I. Taft, Assistant General

Counsel, (202) 898–6830, Rodney D.

Ray, Counsel, (202) 898–3556 or Robert

C. Fick, Counsel, (202) 898–8962,

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

Legal Division, 550 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20429.

Text of General Counsel’s Opinion

General Counsel’s Opinion No. 11;

Interest Charges by Interstate Banks

By William F. Kroener, III, General

Counsel

Background

Section 27 of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act (‘‘FDI Act’’) (12 U.S.C.

1831d) 1 (‘‘section 1831d’’) establishes

the maximum rates that insured statechartered depository institutions and

state-licensed insured branches of

foreign banks (collectively, ‘‘State

banks’’) may charge their customers for

most types of loans. Section 1831d is

patterned after and has been construed

in pari materia with section 5197 of the

Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 85) (‘‘section

85’’ of the National Bank Act (‘‘NBA’’)).

Like section 85, section 1831d has been

construed to provide State banks with

‘‘most favored lender’’ status and to

permit State banks to ‘‘export’’ interest

charges allowed by the state where the

lender is located to out-of-state

borrowers.

Since the enactment of the RiegleNeal Interstate Banking and Branching

Efficiency Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103–328,

108 Stat. 2338 (1994)(‘‘Riegle-Neal Act’’)

and the Riegle-Neal Amendments Act of

1997, Pub. L. 105–24, 111 Stat. 238

(1997) (‘‘Riegle-Neal Amendments

Act’’)(collectively, ‘‘Interstate Banking

Statutes’’) questions have arisen

regarding the appropriate state law for

purposes of section 1831d that should

govern the interest charges on loans

made to customers of a State bank that

is chartered in one state (the bank’s

home state) but has a branch or

branches in another state (the host state)

(an ‘‘Interstate State Bank’’). These

questions have not previously been

addressed by the Legal Division.

Therefore, this General Counsel’s

Opinion sets forth the Legal Division’s

interpretation of section 1831d as it

relates to the Interstate Banking Statutes

to provide guidance in this area to State

banks and the public.2

The Riegle-Neal Act established, for

the first time, a comprehensive federal

statutory scheme for interstate

branching by state and national banks.

In doing so, Congress recognized the

potential efficiencies to be gained by an

interstate branch banking structure as

well as the complications that could

arise in determining when an interstate

bank should look to the laws of its home