Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38521

1 ‘‘New’’ sections refer to the section numbers

resulting from the recent final rule. The ‘‘new’’

sections became effective on July 1, 1998.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–19086 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 330

RIN 3064–AC16

Deposit Insurance Regulations; Joint

Accounts and ‘‘Payable-on-Death’’

Accounts

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to

amend its regulations governing the

insurance coverage of joint ownership

accounts and revocable trust (or

payable-on-death) accounts. These

proposed amendments to the insurance

regulations would supplement the

revisions adopted by the FDIC in a final

rule published in May 1998. The

purpose of these amendments is to

increase further the public’s

understanding of the insurance

regulations through simplification. The

proposed rule would make two

amendments to the regulations. First, it

would eliminate step one of the twostep process for determining the

insurance coverage of joint accounts.

Second, it would change the insurance

coverage of ‘‘payable-on-death’’

accounts by adding parents and siblings

to the current list of ‘‘qualifying

beneficiaries.’’

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before October 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Office of the

Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.

Comments may be hand-delivered to the

guard station at the rear of the 17th

Street Building (located on F Street) on

business days between 7:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. Also, comments may be sent

by FAX ((202) 898–3838) or e-mail

(comments @FDIC.gov). Comments will

be available for inspection in the FDIC

Public Information Center, Room 100,

801 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

on business days between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m.

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. Simplifying the Insurance

Regulations

Federal deposit insurance plays a

critical role in assuring stability and

public confidence in the nation’s

financial system. At the same time,

deposit insurance may reduce the

incentive for depositors to monitor and

discipline banks for excessive risktaking. At present, the only depositors

who will impose a degree of market

discipline are those with deposits over

the $100,000 insurance limit.

All depositors should understand the

rules governing the application of the

$100,000 limit. Confusion regarding

these rules could lead to a loss of funds

by some depositors and an erosion in

public confidence. In addition,

depositors over the $100,000 limit will

impose no market discipline if they do

not realize that their deposits are partly

uninsured. For these reasons, the

deposit insurance rules should be as

simple as possible.

Unfortunately, recent evidence

indicates that some of the insurance

rules are misunderstood by a large

percentage of the employees of

depository institutions. This evidence

includes surveys conducted in three

states by public interest research groups

(PIRGs). These surveys involved the

FDIC’s rules governing the insurance

coverage of joint accounts and ‘‘payableon-death’’ (POD) accounts. Of the bank

employees included in the PIRG

surveys, 63% to 80% misunderstood the

joint account rules and 59% to 83%

misunderstood the POD rules. (Copies

of the PIRG survey results may be

obtained by contacting the FDIC.)

Two years ago, in May 1996, the FDIC

sought comments on amending the rules

governing joint and POD accounts in an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR). See 61 FR 25596 (May 22,

1996). In May 1997, the FDIC published

a proposed rule. See 62 FR 26435 (May

14, 1997). The amendments involving

joint and POD accounts were not

included in the proposed rule because

the FDIC, at that time, did not possess

sufficient information regarding the

amendments’ potential costs.

In May 1998, the proposed rule

became a final rule. See 63 FR 25750

(May 11, 1998). Through this final rule,

the FDIC made a number of important

changes that will make the insurance

regulations more understandable to the

public. (A detailed explanation of these

changes is set forth in the preamble of

the Federal Register final rule.) In the

preamble, the FDIC also stated that it

would continue to study the policy,

economic and other implications of

amending the rules governing joint and

POD accounts. The staff’s study of those

issues has resulted in the proposed rule

published today.

II. The Proposed Rule

The proposed rule would amend two

sections of the deposit insurance

regulations: the new § 330.9 (former

§ 330.7), governing the insurance of

joint ownership accounts; and the new

§ 330.10 (former § 330.8), governing the

insurance of revocable trust (or POD)

accounts.1

A. Joint Accounts

Under the current rules, qualifying

joint accounts are insured separately

from any single ownership accounts

maintained by the co-owners at the

same insured depository institution. See

12 CFR 330.9(a) (former 330.7(a)). A

joint account is a ‘‘qualifying’’ joint

account if it satisfies certain

requirements: (1) the co-owners must be

natural persons; (2) each co-owner must

personally sign a deposit account

signature card; and (3) the withdrawal

rights of the co-owners must be equal.

See 12 CFR 330.9(c)(1) (former

330.7(c)(1)). The requirement involving

signature cards is inapplicable if the

account at issue is a certificate of

deposit, a deposit obligation evidenced

by a negotiable instrument, or an

account maintained for the co-owners

by an agent or custodian. See 12 CFR

330.9(c)(2) (former 330.7(c)(2)).

Assuming these requirements are

satisfied, the current rules provide that

the $100,000 insurance limit shall be

applied in a two-step process. First, all

joint accounts owned by the same

combination of persons at the same

insured depository institution are added

together and insured to a limit of

$100,000. Second, the interests of each

person in all joint accounts, whether

owned by the same or some other

combination of persons, are added

together and insured to a limit of

$100,000. See 12 CFR 330.9(b) (former

330.7(b)). The effects of this two-step

process are: (1) no joint account can be

insured for more than $100,000; (2) no

group of joint accounts owned by the

same combination of persons can be

insured for more than $100,000; and (3)

no person’s combined interest in all

joint accounts can be insured for more

than $100,000.
38522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The two-step process for insuring

joint accounts often is misunderstood by

bankers (as indicated by the PIRG

studies) as well as consumers. This

widespread confusion has resulted in

the loss by some depositors of

significant sums of money. For example,

at one failed depository institution,

three joint accounts (and no other types

of accounts) were maintained by three

siblings. The interest of each sibling was

less than $100,000. The siblings chose

to place all of their funds in joint

accounts so that each of them would

have access to the money in the event

of an emergency or sudden illness.

When the institution failed, step one of

the two-step process required the

aggregation of the three joint accounts.

The amount in excess of $100,000 was

uninsured.

In this example, all of the funds

owned by the siblings could have been

insured if the funds had been held in

individual accounts as opposed to joint

accounts. Thus, the depositors did not

suffer a loss because they placed too

much money in a single depository

institution that failed. Rather, they

suffered a loss simply because they

misunderstood the FDIC’s regulations.

Another example is provided by

Sekula v. FDIC, 39 F.3d 448 (3d Cir.

1994). That court case involved six joint

accounts owned by a husband and wife.

The combined balance of these accounts

was almost $170,000. Of this amount,

only $100,000 was found to be insured.

The court rejected the argument made

by the depositors that they were entitled

to insurance up to $200,000 (i.e.,

$100,000 for each owner). The court

stated, however, that the two-step

process for insuring joint accounts is

unclear.

In order to simplify the coverage of

joint accounts, the FDIC is proposing to

eliminate the first step of the two-step

process. Under this proposed

amendment, the maximum coverage

that any one person could obtain for

his/her interests in all qualifying joint

accounts would remain $100,000. The

maximum insurance coverage of a

particular joint account, however,

would no longer be $100,000. In the

case of a joint account owned by two

persons, for example, the maximum

coverage would increase from $100,000

to $200,000 (i.e., $100,000 for each

owner).

The effects of the proposed

amendment are subject to debate. For

some depositors, such as the three

siblings in the example, the amendment

would result in an expansion of

coverage. On the other hand, many or

most such depositors could obtain the

same level of coverage without the

proposed amendment if they

understood the regulations. The

potential cost to the FDIC of the

proposed amendment is discussed in

greater detail below.

B. POD Accounts

Under the current rules, qualifying

revocable trust (or POD) accounts are

insured separately from any other types

of accounts maintained by either the

owner or the beneficiaries at the same

insured depository institution. See 12

CFR 330.10(a) (former 330.8(a)). A POD

account is a ‘‘qualifying’’ POD account

if it satisfies certain requirements: (1)

the beneficiaries must be the spouse,

children or grandchildren of the owner;

(2) the beneficiaries must be specifically

named in the deposit account records;

(3) the title of the account must include

a term such as ‘‘in trust for’’ or

‘‘payable-on-death to’’ (or any acronym

therefor); and (4) the intention of the

owner of the account (as evidenced by

the account title or any accompanying

revocable trust agreement) must be that

the funds shall belong to the named

beneficiaries upon the owner’s death. If

the account has been opened pursuant

to a formal ‘‘living trust’’ agreement, the

fourth requirement means that the

agreement must not place any

conditions upon the interests of the

beneficiaries that might prevent the

beneficiaries (or their estates or heirs)

from receiving the funds following the

death of the owner. Such conditions are

known as ‘‘defeating contingencies.’’

Assuming these requirements are

satisfied, the $100,000 insurance limit is

not applied on a ‘‘per owner’’ basis.

Rather, the $100,000 insurance limit is

applied on a ‘‘per beneficiary’’ basis to

all POD accounts owned by the same

person at the same insured depository

institution. For example, a POD account

owned by one person or a group of POD

accounts owned by one person could be

insured up to $500,000 if the qualifying

beneficiaries (i.e., spouse, children and

grandchildren) were five in number.

If one of the named beneficiaries of a

POD account is not a qualifying

beneficiary (i.e., not a spouse, child or

grandchild), the funds corresponding to

that beneficiary are treated for insurance

purposes as single ownership funds of

the owner (i.e., the account holder). In

other words, they are aggregated with

any funds in any single ownership

accounts of the owner and insured to a

limit of $100,000. See 12 CFR 330.10(b)

(former 330.8(b)).

On a number of occasions, depositors

have lost money upon the failure of an

insured depository institution because

they believed that POD accounts were

insured on a simple ‘‘per beneficiary’’ or

‘‘per family member’’ basis. They did

not understand the difference between

qualifying beneficiaries and nonqualifying beneficiaries. Typically, in

such cases, the named beneficiary has

been a parent or sibling. In the absence

of a qualifying beneficiary, the POD

account has been aggregated with one or

more single ownership accounts.

In response to such cases, the FDIC is

proposing to add siblings and parents to

the list of qualifying beneficiaries. This

approach would protect most depositors

who misunderstand the current rules

without abandoning the basic concept

that insurance for POD accounts is

provided up to $100,000 on a ‘‘per

qualifying beneficiary’’ basis. The

potential cost to the deposit insurance

funds is discussed below.

III. The Cost of the Proposed Rule

At the request of the Board of

Directors, the FDIC staff recently

conducted a study of the potential cost

of eliminating step one of the two-step

process for insuring joint accounts. The

study also addressed the potential cost

of adding parents and siblings to the list

of ‘‘qualifying beneficiaries’’ for POD

accounts. Copies of this study may be

obtained from the FDIC.

The FDIC study was based upon

depositor files from ten banks that failed

during the past decade. At each of these

banks, depositors suffered losses as a

result of owning deposits over the

$100,000 insurance limit. The advantage

of studying the accounts at such failed

banks is that the accounts were subject

to actual insurance determinations.

Also, as a depository institution

weakens, some depositors may

withdraw their deposits in order to

protect themselves. For this reason, in

determining the cost to the FDIC of a

change in the insurance regulations, an

analysis of the accounts at failed banks

is more useful than an analysis of

accounts at healthy institutions.

The total of all deposits at the ten

banks at the time of failure was $6.7

billion, of which $57 million (0.85%)

was determined to be uninsured. The

FDIC’s analysis involved the files of

1,300 depositors, each of whom

maintained account(s) in excess of

$100,000.

As discussed below, the FDIC’s study

suggests that the cost of the proposed

rule would be minimal compared with

the potential benefits. Depositors would

benefit by not losing funds through

misconceptions regarding the scope of

their insurance coverage; the financial

system would benefit through increased

public confidence.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38523

A. Joint Accounts

At the ten failed banks in the FDIC’s

study, uninsured joint account deposits

totaled $13 million. Of this amount, $12

million was uninsured under step one

of the current two-step process. This

figure represented 21.5% of all

uninsured deposits but only 0.18% of

total deposits. The impact of eliminating

step one can be estimated by applying

this 0.18% figure to failed bank data

from 1988 (the costliest year in recent

history).

In 1988, the FDIC assumed the

obligation to pay insurance on deposits

in the amount of $38 billion. This figure

does not represent the FDIC’s losses for

the year because the FDIC (as subrogee

of the insured depositors) recovered a

significant amount of money through

the liquidation of the assets of the failed

institutions. The losses for the year

amounted to $6.8 billion, representing a

loss ratio of 18%.

Increasing $38 billion (the deposit

obligations assumed by the FDIC in

1988) by 0.18% (the increase that would

result from the elimination of step one)

yields additional insured funds in the

amount of $69.8 million. Applying a

loss ratio of 18% to this $69.8 million

(18% being the FDIC’s loss ratio in

1988) yields additional losses in the

amount of $12.6 million. In other words,

in 1988, the absence of step one of the

two-step process for insuring joint

accounts would have resulted in

estimated additional losses to the FDIC

of $12.6 million (an increase of 0.18%).

In 1993, the Federal Reserve Board

found that the elimination of step one

of the current joint account rules would

have increased the amount of insured

deposits in all FDIC-insured institutions

by about $22 billion (out of a total

deposit base at that time of $3.273

trillion). In its own study, the FDIC

came to a different conclusion.

Currently, the level of domestic deposits

at all FDIC-insured institutions is $3.6

trillion. If the 0.18% figure discussed

above is applied to this $3.6 trillion, the

conclusion follows that the elimination

of step one would increase the amount

of insured deposits by $6.5 billion—not

$22 billion as found in the Federal

Reserve study. The difference between

the two studies may be attributable to

the fact that the FDIC’s study was

limited to failed banks that produced

actual losses for depositors. In any

event, in measuring the impact of a

change in the insurance regulations, the

important question is not the increase in

the amount of insured deposits ($6.5

billion versus $22 billion) but the

increase in possible losses to the FDIC.

As discussed above, in 1988 (the

costliest year in recent history), the

absence of step one of the two-step

process would not have resulted in

additional losses amounting to billions

of dollars. Rather, the additional loss

suffered by the FDIC would have

amounted to approximately $12.6

million.

B. POD Accounts

At the ten bank sample, the total

deposit base was $6.7 billion. Of this

amount, depositors with more than

$100,000 in total deposits held $22.2

million in POD accounts for the benefit

of non-qualifying beneficiaries. In

accordance with the FDIC’s regulations,

these funds in the amount of $22.2

million were treated as single

ownership accounts. In this category,

most of the funds were insured. Only

$6.3 million was uninsured.

From this type of study, it is difficult

to draw firm conclusions about the

consequences of changing the insurance

rules applicable to POD accounts. The

problem is the impossibility of

predicting how depositors might alter

their accounts in response to any such

changes. In any event, the results of the

FDIC’s study indicate that POD accounts

are not a significant component of a

typical bank’s deposit portfolio. For this

reason, any change in the rules

governing the insurance coverage of

POD accounts should not produce a

significant impact on the FDIC.

IV. Request for Comments

The Board of Directors of the FDIC

(Board) is seeking comments on the

proposed amendments to the

regulations governing the insurance

coverage of joint accounts and POD

accounts. In addition, the Board is

seeking comments on any other possible

means of simplifying the insurance

coverage of joint or POD accounts.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule would simplify the

FDIC’s deposit insurance regulations. It

would not involve any collections of

information under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Consequently, no information has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small businesses within the

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The

amendments to the deposit insurance

rules would apply to all FDIC-insured

depository institutions and would

impose no new reporting, recordkeeping

or other compliance requirements upon

those entities. Accordingly, the Act’s

requirements relating to an initial and

final regulatory flexibility analysis are

not applicable.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 330

Bank deposit insurance, Banks,

banking, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Savings and loan

associations, Trusts and trustees.

The Board of Directors of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation hereby

proposes to amend part 330 of chapter

III of title 12 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 330—DEPOSIT INSURANCE

COVERAGE

1. The authority citation for part 330

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1813(l), 1813(m),

1817(i), 1818(q), 1819(Tenth), 1820(f),

1821(a), 1822(c).

2. In § 330.9, paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 330.9 Joint ownership accounts.

* * * * *

(b) Determination of insurance

coverage. The interests of each co-owner

in all qualifying joint accounts, whether

owned by the same or different

combinations of persons, shall be added

together and the total shall be insured

up to $100,000. (Example: ‘‘A&B’’ have

a qualifying joint account with a balance

of $60,000; ‘‘A&C’’ have a qualifying

joint account with a balance of $80,000;

and ‘‘A&B&C’’ have a qualifying joint

account with a balance of $150,000. A’s

combined ownership interest in all

qualifying joint accounts would be

$120,000 ($30,000 plus $40,000 plus

$50,000); therefore, A’s interest would

be insured in the amount of $100,000

and uninsured in the amount of

$20,000. B’s combined ownership

interest in all qualifying joint accounts

would be $80,000 ($30,000 plus

$50,000); therefore, B’s interest would

be fully insured. C’s combined

ownership interest in all qualifying joint

accounts would be $90,000 ($40,000

plus $50,000); therefore, C’s interest

would be fully insured.)

* * * * *

3. In § 330.10, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 330.10 Revocable trust accounts.

(a) General rule. Funds owned by an

individual and deposited into an

account evidencing an intention that

upon the death of the owner the funds

shall belong to one or more qualifying

beneficiaries shall be insured in the

amount of up to $100,000 in the
38524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

aggregate as to each such named

qualifying beneficiary, separately from

any other accounts of the owner or the

beneficiaries. For purposes of this

provision, the term ‘‘qualifying

beneficiaries’’ means the owner’s

spouse, child/children, grandchild/

grandchildren, parent/parents or

sibling/siblings. (Example: If A

establishes a qualifying account payable

upon death to his spouse, sibling and

two children, assuming compliance

with the rules of this provision, the

account would be insured up to

$400,000 separately from any other

different types of accounts either A or

the beneficiaries may have with the

same depository institution.) Accounts

covered by this provision are commonly

referred to as tentative or ‘‘Totten trust’’

accounts, ‘‘payable-on-death’’ accounts,

or revocable trust accounts.

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of

July, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James LaPierre,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18830 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–50–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: This document announces a

reopening of the comment period for the

above-referenced NPRM which

proposed adoption of a new

airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to all Boeing Model 737–100,

–200, –300, –400, and –500 series

airplanes. That NPRM invites comments

concerning the proposed requirements

for installation of components for the

suppression of electrical transients, and/

or installation of components to provide

shielding and separation to the fuel

system wiring that is routed to the fuel

tanks from adjacent wiring; and

installation of flame arrestors and

pressure relief valves in the fuel vent

system. This reopening of the comment

period is necessary to afford all

interested persons an opportunity to

present their views on the proposed

requirements of that NPRM.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

50–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

Information concerning this NPRM

may be obtained from or examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Hartonas, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056, telephone

(425) 227–2864, fax (425) 227–1181; or

Dorr Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056, telephone (425) 227–2684,

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all Boeing Model

737–100, –200, –300, –400, and –500

series airplanes was published in the

Federal Register on April 22, 1998 (63

FR 19852). That action proposed to

require installation of components for

the suppression of electrical transients,

and/or installation of components to

provide shielding and separation to the

fuel system wiring that is routed to the

fuel tanks from adjacent wiring; and

installation of flame arrestors and

pressure relief valves in the fuel vent

system. That action invites comments

on regulatory, economic, environmental,

and energy aspects of the proposal.

That action was prompted by testing

results, obtained in support of an

accident investigation, and by reexamination of possible causes of a

similar accident. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent possible ignition of fuel vapors

in the fuel tanks, and external ignition

of the fuel vapor exiting the fuel vent

system and consequent propagation of a

flame front into the fuel tanks.

Since the issuance of that proposal,

commenters have raised issues

regarding the ability to implement

corrective action in a timely manner,

particularly because the manufacturer

has yet to issue a service bulletin. Based

on these and other comments, the FAA

has determined that further discussion

and input may be beneficial prior to the

adoption of a final rule. As a result, the

FAA has decided to reopen the

comment period for 45 days to receive

additional comments.

The comment period for Rules Docket

No. 98-NM–50-AD closes August 31,

1998.

Because no other portion of the

proposal or other regulatory information

has been changed, the entire proposal is

not being republished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 8,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18950 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–AGL–43]

Proposed Modification of Class E

Airspace; Two Harbors, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify Class E airspace at Two Harbors,

MN. A Global Positioning System (GPS)

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (Rwy) 24

has been developed for Richard B.

Helgeson Airport. Controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet

above ground level (AGL) is needed to

contain aircraft executing the approach.

This action would increase the radius

of, and add a northeast extension to, the

existing controlled airspace for Richard

B. Helgeson Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules

Docket No. 98–AGL–43, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief