Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Notices 30227

1See generally 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(G) and

1818(i)(2)(G).

2Some federal laws authorizing the Federal

financial institutions regulatory agencies to assess

fines, such as the civil money penalty provisions of

section 102(f) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act

of 1973, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f), and

section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

15 U.S.C. 78u–2, do not require the consideration

of the five statutory factors.

Regulation, (202) 452–2743, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th and C Streets NW,

Washington, DC 20551.

FDIC: Dan Austin, Review Examiner,

Division of Supervision, (202) 898–

6774, Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, 550 17th Street NW,

Washington DC 20429.

OTS: Richard Stearns, Deputy Chief

Counsel, Office of Enforcement, (202)

906–7966, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC

20552.

NCUA: John Ianno, Senior Trial

Attorney, Office of General Counsel,

(703) 518–6540, National Credit Union

Administration, 1775 Duke Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FFIEC

Task Force on Supervision, acting under

delegated authority, is giving notice that

it has revised its 1980 CMP Policy (45

FR 59423; Sept. 9, 1980). The revised

policy statement, published in full text

later in this Federal Register notice,

updates the 1980 CMP Policy. The

revised policy statement:

(1) Specifies the factors the agencies

should take into consideration in

deciding whether, and in what amounts,

to initiate civil money penalty

proceedings;

(2) Eliminates references to

interagency coordination of civil money

penalty proceedings, because such

coordination is addressed in a separate

interagency policy (FFIEC, Interagency

Coordination of Formal Corrective

Action by the Federal Bank Regulatory

Agencies);

(3) Eliminates references to the

statutes authorizing the agencies to

initiate civil money penalty proceedings

or the authority pursuant to the statutes;

(4) Eliminates references to the

agencies’ rules of practice and

procedure for civil money penalty

proceedings; and

(5) Specifies that the amount of a civil

money penalty may be greater than the

economic gain in order to deter future

misconduct.

The FFIEC Task Force on

Supervision, acting under delegated

authority, has recommended that the

agencies adopt, through separate

actions, the revised policy statement.

The revised policy statement reads as

follows:

Interagency Policy Regarding the

Assessment of Civil Money Penalties by

the Federal Financial Institutions

Regulatory Agencies

This supervisory policy provides

general guidance concerning the criteria

used by the Federal financial

institutions regulatory agencies

(agencies) in the assessment of civil

money penalties under statutes that

require consideration of the five

following factors in setting the amount

of fines:1

(1) Size of financial resources;

(2) Good faith;

(3) Gravity of the violation;

(4) History of previous violations; and

(5) Other factors that justice may

require.

The principles set forth in this policy

apply to penalties assessed both by

consent and through formal

enforcement proceedings.

The agencies generally are authorized,

under these statutes, to assess civil

money penalties for violations of:

(1) Any law or regulation;

(2) Any final or temporary order,

including a cease and desist,

suspension, removal, or prohibition

order;

(3) Any condition imposed in writing

in connection with the grant of any

application or other request;

(4) Any written agreement; and

(5) Regulatory reporting requirements.

Under certain circumstances, the

agencies may also assess fines for unsafe

or unsound practices and breaches of

fiduciary duty.

In determining the amount and the

appropriateness of initiating a civil

money penalty assessment proceeding

under statutes requiring consideration

of the above-mentioned five statutory

factors,2 the agencies have identified the

following factors as relevant:

(1) Evidence that the violation or

practice or breach of fiduciary duty was

intentional or was committed with a

disregard of the law or with a disregard

of the consequences to the institution;

(2) The duration and frequency of the

violations, practices, or breaches of

fiduciary duty;

(3) The continuation of the violations,

practices, or breach of fiduciary duty

after the respondent was notified or,

alternatively, its immediate cessation

and correction;

(4) The failure to cooperate with the

agency in effecting early resolution of

the problem;

(5) Evidence of concealment of the

violation, practice, or breach of

fiduciary duty or, alternatively,

voluntary disclosure of the violation,

practice or breach of fiduciary duty;

(6) Any threat of loss, actual loss, or

other harm to the institution, including

harm to the public confidence in the

institution, and the degree of such harm;

(7) Evidence that a participant or his

or her associates received financial gain

or other benefit as a result of the

violation, practice, or breach of

fiduciary duty;

(8) Evidence of any restitution paid by

a participant of losses resulting from the

violation, practice, or breach of

fiduciary duty;

(9) History of prior violation, practice,

or breach of fiduciary duty, particularly

where they are similar to the actions

under consideration;

(10) Previous criticism of the

institution or individual for similar

actions;

(11) Presence or absence of a

compliance program and its

effectiveness;

(12) Tendency to engage in violations

of law, unsafe or unsound banking

practices, or breaches of fiduciary duty;

and

(13) The existence of agreements,

commitments, orders, or conditions

imposed in writing intended to prevent

the violation, practice, or breach of

fiduciary duty.

The agencies will give additional

consideration in cases where the

violation, practice, or breach causes

quantifiable, economic benefit or loss.

In those cases, removal of the benefit or

recompense of the loss usually will be

insufficient, by itself, to promote

compliance with statutory and

regulatory requirements. The penalty

amount should reflect a remedial

purpose and should provide a deterrent

to future misconduct.

The agencies intend these factors to

provide guidance on the

appropriateness of a civil money

penalty, in a manner consistent with the

statutes authorizing such an action. This

policy does not preclude any agency

from considering any other matter

relevant to the civil money penalty

assessment.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Keith Todd,

Acting Executive Secretary, Federal Financial

Institutions Examination Council.

[FR Doc. 98–14611 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P, 6720–01–P, 6714–01–P,

4810–33–P, 7535–01–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Field

The Commission hereby gives notice

of the filing of the following
30228 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Notices

agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of

1984.

Interested parties can review or obtain

copies of agreements at the Washington,

DC offices of the Commission, 800

North Capitol Street, N.W., Room 962.

Interested parties may submit comments

on an agreement to the Secretary,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days

of the date of this notice appears in the

Federal Register.

Agreement No.: 203–011623.

Title: APL/MOL/HMM Asia-U.S.

Atlantic Coast Space Sharing

Agreement.

Parties:

American President Lines, Ltd.

(‘‘APL’’)

APL Co. PTE Ltd. (‘‘APL’’)

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. (‘‘MOL’’)

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.

(‘‘HMM’’)

Synopsis: The proposed agreement

authorizes the parties to charter space to

and from each other, coordinate

sailings, cooperate in the use of

equipment and terminals, and reach

voluntary agreement on rates, terms and

conditions of service contracts and

tariffs in the trade between ports in the

Far East and ports on the Atlantic and

Gulf Coasts of the United States, Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and

points in the United States via those

ports.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

By Order of the Federal Maritime

Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14619 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 98–07]

CTM International, Inc. v. Medtech

Enterprises, Inc. and Mr. Xin Liu;

Notice of Filing of Complaint and

Assignment

Notice is given that a complaint filed

by CTM International, Inc.

(‘‘Complainant’’) against Medtech

Enterprises, Inc. and Mr. Xin Liu

(‘‘Respondents’’) was served May 28,

1998. Complainant alleges that

Respondents violated section 10(a)(1) of

the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app.

section 1709(a)(1), by issuing a bad

check or issuing a check upon which

payment was subsequently stopped in

order to induce release of cargo, and

thereafter failing to remit the ocean

freight and other charges due and

payable for two shipments of used

medical equipment from New York to

Xingang, China.

This proceeding has been assigned to

the office of Administrative Law Judges.

Hearing in this matter, if any is held,

shall commence within the time

limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61,

and only after consideration has been

given by the parties and the presiding

officer to the use of alternative forms of

dispute resolution. The hearing shall

include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the

presiding officer only upon proper

showing that there are genuine issues of

material fact that cannot be resolved on

the basis of sworn statements, affidavits,

depositions, or other documents or that

the nature of the matter in issue is such

that an oral hearing and crossexamination are necessary for the

development of an adequate record.

Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR

502.61, the initial decision of the

presiding officer in this proceeding shall

be issued by May 28, 1999, and the final

decision of the Commission shall be

issued by September 29, 1999.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14620 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License

Applicants

Notice is hereby given that the

following applicants have filed with the

Federal Maritime Commission

applications for licenses as ocean freight

forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718 and 46 CFR part 510).

Persons knowing of any reason why

any of the following applicants should

not receive a license are requested to

contact the Office of Freight Forwarders,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, DC 20573.

Cargo U.K., Inc., 4790 Aviation

Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30349, Officers:

Roger H. Botting, President

Southeast Logistics, 122 Agape Street,

Williamson, GA 30292, Pat Owen,

Sole Proprietor

Ocean’s Freight, Inc., 2664 West 70th

Place, Hialeah, FL 33016, Officer: Luis

Miguel Boscan, President

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14621 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. The application also will be

available for inspection at the offices of

the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than June 29, 1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

(Philip Jackson, Applications Officer)

230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60690-1413:

1. Larch Bancorporation, Inc.,

Larchwood, Iowa; to merge with

Exchange State Bancorporation, Inc.,

Hills, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly

acquire Exchange State Bank of Hills,

Hills, Minnesota.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411

Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-

2034:

1. Union Planters Corporation,

Memphis, Tennessee, and its wholly

owned subsidiary, Union Planters

Holding Corporation, Memphis,

Tennessee; to acquire 100 percent of the

voting shares of Transflorida Bank, Boca

Raton, Florida.

C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198-0001:

1. AmCorp Financial, Inc., Ardmore,

Oklahoma; to acquire 100 percent of the