25748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities,

Incorporation by reference, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is

amended as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd,

150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 301.45–3, paragraph (a) is

amended by adding entries for Ohio and

Wisconsin, in alphabetical order, to read

as follows:

§ 301.45–3 Generally infested areas.

(a) * * *

* * * * *

Ohio

* * * * *

Lorain County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Medina County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Wayne County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Wisconsin

* * * * *

Calumet County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Kenosha County. The entire county.

* * * * *

Marinette County. The entire county.

Menominee County. The entire county.

Milwaukee County. The entire county.

Oconto County. The entire county.

Outagamie County. The entire county.

Ozaukee County. The entire county.

Racine County. The entire county.

Shawano County. The entire county.

Sheboygan County. The entire county.

Washington County. The entire county.

Waukesha County. The entire county.

Winnebago County. The entire county.

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of

May 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12396 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 97–056–11]

Mediterranean Fruit Fly; Addition to

the Quarantined Area

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

Mediterranean fruit fly regulations by

expanding the current quarantined area

in Dade County, FL. The regulations

restrict the interstate movement of

regulated articles from the quarantined

area. This action is necessary on an

emergency basis to prevent the spread of

the Mediterranean fruit fly into

noninfested areas of the continental

United States.

DATES: Interim rule effective May 5,

1998. Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before July

10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 97–056–11, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 97–056–11. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Michael B. Stefan, Operations Officer,

Domestic and Emergency Programs,

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236, (301) 734–

8247; or e-mail:

mstefan@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis

capitata (Wiedemann), is one of the

world’s most destructive pests of

numerous fruits and vegetables. The

Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) can

cause serious economic losses. Heavy

infestations can cause complete loss of

crops, and losses of 25 to 50 percent are

not uncommon. The short life cycle of

this pest permits the rapid development

of serious outbreaks.

The Mediterranean fruit fly

regulations (7 CFR 301.78 through

301.78–10; referred to below as the

regulations) restrict the interstate

movement of regulated articles from

quarantined areas to prevent the spread

of Medfly to noninfested areas of the

United States.

In an interim rule effective on June

16, 1997, and published in the Federal

Register on June 20, 1997 (62 FR 33537–

33539, Docket No. 97–056–2), we added

a portion of Hillsborough County, FL, to

the list of quarantined areas and

restricted the interstate movement of

regulated articles from that quarantined

area. In a second interim rule effective

on July 3, 1997, and published in the

Federal Register on July 10, 1997 (62 FR

36976–36978, Docket No. 97–056–3), we

expanded the quarantined area in

Hillsborough County, FL, and added

areas in Manatee and Polk Counties, FL,

to the list of quarantined areas. In a

third interim rule effective on August 7,

1997, and published in the Federal

Register on August 13, 1997 (62 FR

43269–43272, Docket No. 97–056–4), we

further expanded the quarantined area

by adding new areas in Hillsborough

County, FL, and an area in Orange

County, FL, to the list of quarantined

areas. In that third interim rule, we also

revised the entry for Manatee County,

FL, to make the boundary lines of the

quarantined area more accurate. In a

fourth interim rule effective on

September 4, 1997, and published in the

Federal Register on September 10, 1997

(62 FR 47553–47558, Docket No. 97–

056–5), we quarantined a new area in

Polk County, FL, and an area in Sarasota

County, FL. In a fifth interim rule

effective on October 15, 1997, and

published in the Federal Register on

October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54571–54572,

Docket No. 97–056–7), we removed all

or portions of the quarantined areas in

Hillsborough, Manatee, Orange, Polk,

and Sarasota Counties, FL, from the list

of quarantined areas. In a sixth interim

rule effective on November 14, 1997,

and published in the Federal Register
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 25749

on November 20, 1997 (62 FR 61897–

61898, Docket No. 97–056–8), we

removed all of the quarantined areas in

Polk County, FL, from the list of

quarantined areas. In a seventh interim

rule effective April 17, 1998, and

published in the Federal Register on

April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19797–19798,

Docket No. 97–056–9), we removed the

quarantined area in Hillsborough

County, FL, from the list of quarantined

areas. In an eighth interim rule also

effective on April 17, 1998, and

published in the Federal Register on

April 23, 1998 (63 FR 20053–20054,

Docket No. 98–046–1), we added a

portion of Dade County, FL, to the list

of quarantined areas and restricted the

interstate movement of regulated

articles from the quarantined area.

Recent surveys by inspectors of

Florida State and county agencies and

by inspectors of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have

detected Medfly larvae in fruit in the

currently quarantined area in Dade

County, FL. This indicates a

reproducing Medfly population in the

area. For this reason, we are expanding

the quarantined area in Dade County,

FL, to prevent the spread of Medfly to

noninfested areas.

The regulations in § 301.78–3 provide

that the Administrator of APHIS will list

as a quarantined area each State, or each

portion of a State, in which the Medfly

has been found by an inspector, in

which the Administrator has reason to

believe that the Medfly is present, or

that the Administrator considers

necessary to regulate because of its

inseparability for quarantine

enforcement purposes from localities in

which the Medfly has been found.

Less than an entire State will be

designated as a quarantined area only if

the Administrator determines that the

State has adopted and is enforcing

restrictions on the intrastate movement

of regulated articles that are equivalent

to those imposed on the interstate

movement of regulated articles, and the

designation of less than the entire State

as a quarantined area will prevent the

interstate spread of the Medfly. The

boundary lines for a portion of a State

being designated as quarantined are set

up approximately four-and-one-halfmiles from the detection sites. The

boundary lines may vary due to factors

such as the location of Medfly host

material, the location of transportation

centers such as bus stations and

airports, the pattern of persons moving

in that State, the number and patterns

of distribution of the Medfly, and the

use of clearly identifiable lines for the

boundaries.

In accordance with these criteria and

the recent Medfly finding described

above, we are amending 301.78–3 by

expanding the current quarantined area

in Dade County, FL. The resulting

quarantined area is described in the rule

portion of this document.

Emergency Action

The Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that an emergency exists

that warrants publication of this interim

rule without prior opportunity for

public comment. Immediate action is

necessary to prevent the Medfly from

spreading to noninfested areas of the

United States.

Because prior notice and other public

procedures with respect to this action

are impracticable and contrary to the

public interest under these conditions,

we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553

to make it effective upon signature. We

will consider comments that are

received within 60 days of publication

of this rule in the Federal Register.

After the comment period closes, we

will publish another document in the

Federal Register. It will include a

discussion of any comments we receive

and any amendments we are making to

the rule as a result of the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This interim rule amends the Medfly

regulations by expanding the current

quarantined area in Dade County, FL.

This action is necessary on an

emergency basis to prevent the spread of

the Medfly into noninfested areas of the

United States.

This interim rule affects the interstate

movement of regulated articles from the

newly quarantined area of Dade County,

FL. We estimate that there are 63

entities in this area of Dade County, FL,

that sell, process, handle, or move

regulated articles; this estimate includes

14 mobile vendors, 34 stores/markets,

and 15 nurseries. The number of these

entities that meet the U.S. Small

Business Administration’s (SBA)

definition of a small entity is unknown,

since the information needed to make

that determination (i.e., each entity’s

gross receipts or number of employees)

is not currently available. However, it is

reasonable to assume that most of the 63

entities are small in size, since the

overwhelming majority of businesses in

Florida, as well as the rest of the United

States, are small entities by SBA

standards.

We believe that few, if any, of the 63

entities will be significantly affected by

the quarantine action taken in this

interim rule because few of these types

of entities move regulated articles

outside the State of Florida during the

normal course of their business. Nor do

consumers of products purchased from

these types of entities generally move

those products interstate. The effect on

the small entities that do move

regulated articles interstate from the

quarantined area will be minimized by

the availability of various treatments

that, in most cases, will allow those

small entities to move regulated articles

interstate with very little additional

costs. Also, many of these types of small

entities sell other items in addition to

regulated articles, so the effect, if any,

of the interim rule should be minimal.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this rule. The site

specific environmental assessment and

programmatic Medfly environmental

impact statement provide a basis for our

conclusion that implementation of

integrated pest management to achieve

eradication of the Medfly would not

have a significant impact on human

health and the natural environment.

Based on the finding of no significant

impact, the Administrator of the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that an environmental

impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were
25750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2)

Regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality for

implementing the procedural provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)

USDA regulations implementing NEPA

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part

372).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect copies are requested

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to

facilitate entry into the reading room. In

addition, copies may be obtained by

writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subject in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities,

Incorporation by reference, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is

amended as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd,

150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 301.78–3, paragraph (c), the

entry for Florida is revised to read as

follows:

§ 301.78–3 Quarantined areas.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

FLORIDA

Dade County. That portion of Dade County

beginning at the intersection of Northwest

87th Avenue and Northwest 103rd Street

(State Highway 932); then east along

Northwest 103rd Street (State Highway 932)

(also known as 49th Street) to the section line

dividing sections 4 and 5, T. 53 S., R. 41 E.;

then south along the section line dividing

sections 4 and 5, T. 53 S., R. 41 E., to

Northwest 36th Street (State Highway 948);

then west along Northwest 36th Street to

Northwest 87th Avenue; then north along

Northwest 87th Avenue to the point of

beginning.

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of

May 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12395 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 330

RIN 3064–AB73

Simplification of Deposit Insurance

Rules

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is revising its

deposit insurance regulations by

adopting three substantive amendments

and numerous technical amendments.

The purpose of these amendments is to

increase the public’s understanding of

the regulations through simplification.

The substantive amendments in the

final rule will: Relax the FDIC’s

recordkeeping requirements for certain

agency or fiduciary accounts; create a

six-month ‘‘grace period’’ following the

death of a depositor for the restructuring

of accounts; and clarify the insurance

coverage of revocable trust accounts

when an account is held by the

depositor pursuant to a formal ‘‘living

trust’’ agreement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher L. Hencke, Counsel, (202)

898–8839, or Joseph A. DiNuzzo, Senior

Counsel, (202) 898–7349, Legal

Division, Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, 550 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Simplifying the deposit insurance

regulations is one of the FDIC’s

corporate operating projects under its

Strategic Plan. The purpose is to

promote public understanding of

deposit insurance and, particularly, to

clarify and illustrate rules that have

been misunderstood. The public’s

misunderstanding of certain of the rules

has been reflected in the large volume

of letters and phone calls received by

the FDIC concerning deposit insurance.

Also, this simplification effort is in

furtherance of section 303(a) of the

Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12

U.S.C. 4803(a), requiring the federal

banking agencies to reduce regulatory

burden and improve efficiency.

The FDIC’s insurance regulations are

codified at 12 CFR part 330. In recent

years, the FDIC has revised these

regulations twice (not including a third

revision that dealt only with certain

disclosure requirements). In 1980,

following the termination of the Federal

Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation

(FSLIC), the FDIC issued uniform

regulations applicable to deposits in all

insured depository institutions

including those previously insured by

the FSLIC. The issuance of uniform

regulations was mandated by the

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,

and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)

(Pub. L. 101–73 (1989)). In 1993, the

FDIC revised the rules applicable to the

deposits of employee benefit plans and

retirement plans. This revision was

mandated by the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation Improvement Act

of 1991 (FDICIA) (Pub. L. 102–242

(1991)). Notwithstanding these

relatively recent revisions, the Board of

Directors (Board) believes that the final

rule is necessary for the purpose of

simplification.

All revisions to the insurance

regulations must be consistent with

section 11(a) of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C.

1821(a). Section 11(a) provides that

deposits maintained by a depositor in

the same capacity and the same right at

the same insured depository institution

must be aggregated and insured up to

$100,000. The FDI Act does not define

‘‘depositor’’, ‘‘capacity’’ or ‘‘right’’.

Through the insurance regulations, the

FDIC has implemented these terms by

recognizing different categories of

accounts based on ownership. Each type

of account is entitled to separate

insurance up to the $100,000 limit if it

satisfies certain requirements. For

example, single ownership accounts

owned by a particular depositor are not

added to qualifying joint accounts partly

owned by the same depositor.

The final rule is the product of a

process that began in May of 1996. At

that time, the FDIC published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPR). See 61 FR 25596

(May 22, 1996). The ANPR was

followed, in May of 1997, by the

publication of a proposed rule. See 62

FR 26435 (May 14, 1997). The evolution

of the final rule is discussed in greater

detail below.

The final rule does not complete the

FDIC’s simplification efforts. As

discussed below, the FDIC is still

studying other possible revisions to its