30226 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 /Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / Notices

1998. On May 22, 1998, Southern filed

an opposition to these requests. For the

reasons stated below, we conclude that

the extensions should be granted in part

and denied in part.

2. ITA, the frequency coordinator for

800 MHz I/LT applications, states that it

needs additional time to submit

comments in order to poll its

membership regarding these issues

before it files comments. Nextel states

that it needs additional time in order to

review and analyze Southern’s

application for review, which seeks

relief similar to that sought in waiver

request, and to which the waiver request

refers regarding certain arguments.

Nextel further states that it did not

obtain a copy of the application for

review, which was filed under seal,

until May 18, 1998. AMTA states that

additional time is needed due to the

scope of the issues on which comment

was sought and the impact that

resolution of those issues will have on

the Part 90 radio services.

3. In its opposition, Southern does not

object to extending the comment period

with respect to the related issues on

which we invited comment. However, it

argues that further delaying resolution

of the waiver request itself by extending

the comment period is inappropriate,

given that it faces an impending

implementation deadline. In this

connection, Southern contends that

unduly delaying resolution of the

waiver request could prejudice its

efforts to meet such implementation

obligations. Southern suggests that this

proceeding be bifurcated, with

consideration of its waiver request

proceeding separately from

consideration of the other issues.

4. We conclude that an extension of

time would serve the public interest. We

believe that providing interested parties

additional time to address the issues on

which comment has been sought would

result in a more comprehensive record

that includes the views of various

sectors of the private land mobile radio

(PLMR) and specialized mobile radio

(SMR) communities. We note, however,

that our desire for a comprehensive

record should be balanced against

Southern’s request that we not unduly

delay resolution of its pending waiver

request. Thus, we are concerned about

granting the requested thirty-day

extensions under the circumstances.

Rather, we believe an extension of

fifteen (15) days should be adequate to

allow the PLMR and SMR communities

to respond to the waiver request and

comment on the related issues. In

addition, we believe that this brief

extension of time will not result in a

significant delay in the resolution of

Southern’s pending waiver request. We

therefore extend the period of time for

filing comments to and including June

12, 1998, and we extend the period for

filing reply comments to and including

July 6, 1998.

5. It is hereby ordered that pursuant

to § 1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 1.46, the requests of ITA, Nextel,

and AMTA to extend the deadlines for

filing comments and reply comments in

this proceeding are granted in part and

denied in part, to the extent indicated

herein.

6. This action is taken under

delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.131

and 0.331 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 0.131, 0.331.

7. For further information, contact

Scot Stone, Public Safety and Private

Wireless Division, at (202) 418–0680 or

via e-mail to sstone@fcc.gov.

Federal Communications Commission.

D’wana R. Terry,

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless

Division.

[FR Doc. 98–14601 Filed 6–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

* * * * *

FEDERAL REGISTER NUMBER: 98–14223.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME:

Thursday, June 4, 1998, 10 a.m.,

meeting open to the public.

THIS MEETING HAS BEEN

CANCELLED.

* * * * *

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at 10

a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington,

DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to

the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2

U.S.C. § 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2

U.S.C. § 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26,

U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in

civil actions or proceedings or

arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and

procedures or matters affecting a

particular employee.

* * * * *

DATE & TIME: Thursday, June 11, 1998 at

10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW, Washington,

DC (ninth floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the

public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Electronic Filing for Presidential

Committees.

Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,

Telephone: (202) 694–1220.

Marjorie W. Emmons,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–14893 Filed 6–1–98; 3:04 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

EXAMINATION COUNCIL

Assessment of Civil Money Penalties

AGENCY: Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council (FFIEC).

ACTION: Notice of revised policy

statement.

SUMMARY: The FFIEC Task Force on

Supervision, acting under delegated

authority, has revised the 1980

Interagency Policy Regarding the

Assessment of Civil Money Penalties by

the Federal Financial Institutions

Regulatory Agencies (1980 CMP Policy).

The revised policy statement specifies

factors that the Federal financial

institutions regulatory agencies should

take into consideration in deciding

whether, and in what amounts, civil

money penalty assessment proceedings

should be initiated. The revised policy

statement supersedes the 1980 CMP

Policy.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

FFIEC is comprised of the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System (Board), the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),

the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS),

and the National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA) (collectively,

the agencies). Questions regarding this

notice and the revised policy statement

may be addressed to the FFIEC contact.

Agency specific questions should be

addressed to the appropriate agency

contact.

FFIEC: Keith Todd, Acting Executive

Secretary, Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council, (202) 634–6526,

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite

200, Washington, DC 20037.

OCC: Carolyn Amundson, Senior

Attorney, Enforcement & Compliance

Division, (202) 874–5371, 250 E Street

SW, Washington, DC 20219.

Board: Nancy Oakes, Senior Attorney,

Division of Banking Supervision and
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