This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

21288

Vol. 66, No. 83

Monday, April 30, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 955

[Docket No. FV01–955–2]

Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia;

Continuance Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Referendum order.

SUMMARY: This document directs that a

referendum be conducted among

eligible growers of Vidalia onions in

Georgia, to determine whether they

favor continuance of the marketing

order regulating the handling of Vidalia

onions grown in the production area.

DATES: The referendum will be

conducted from June 4 through 22,

2001. To vote in this referendum,

growers must have been producing

Vidalia onions within the designated

production area in Georgia during the

period January 1, 2000, through

December 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the marketing

order may be obtained from the office of

the referendum agents at the Southeast

Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, Agricultural

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, P.O. Box 2276, Winter

Haven, FL 33883–2276, or the Office of

the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William G. Pimental, Marketing

Specialist, Southeast Marketing Field

Office, Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

2276, Winter Haven, FL 33883–2276;

telephone (863) 229–4770; fax (863)

299–5169; or Melissa Schmaedick,

Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, Agricultural

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, room

2522–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone (202) 720–2491; fax (202)

720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Marketing Agreement and Order No.

955 (7 CFR part 955), hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘order,’’ and the

applicable provisions of the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Act,’’ it is hereby

directed that a referendum be conducted

to ascertain whether continuance of the

order is favored by the growers. The

referendum shall be conducted from

June 4 through 22, 2001, among Vidalia

onion growers in the production area.

Only growers that were engaged in the

production of Vidalia onions in Georgia,

during the period of January 1, 2000,

through December 31, 2000, may

participate in the continuance

referendum.

The Secretary of Agriculture has

determined that continuance referenda

are an effective means for determining

whether growers favor continuation of

marketing order programs. The

Secretary would consider termination of

the order if less than two-thirds of the

growers voting in the referendum, and

growers of less than two-thirds of the

volume of Vidalia onions represented in

the referendum, favor continuance. In

evaluating the merits of continuance

versus termination, the Secretary will

consider the results of the referendum

and other relevant information

regarding operation of the order. The

Secretary will evaluate the order’s

relative benefits and disadvantages to

growers, handlers, and consumers to

determine whether continuing the order

would tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork

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

Chapter 35), the ballot materials to be

used in the referendum herein ordered

have been submitted to and approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and have been assigned OMB

No. 0581–0178. It has been estimated

that it will take an average of 20 minutes

for each of the approximately 136

growers of Vidalia onions in Georgia to

cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary.

Ballots postmarked after June 22, 2001,

will not be included in the vote

tabulation.

Christian D. Nissen and William G.

Pimental of the Southeast Marketing

Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs, AMS, USDA, are hereby

designated as the referendum agents of

the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct

such referendum. The procedure

applicable to the referendum shall be

the ‘‘Procedure for the Conduct of

Referenda in Connection With

Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables,

and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as

Amended’’ (7 CFR part 900.400 et seq.).

Ballots will be mailed to all growers

of record and may also be obtained from

the referendum agents, or from their

appointees.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 955

7 CFR Part 955

Marketing agreements, Onions,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10662 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Part 502

[No. OTS–2001–30]

RIN 1550–AB47

Assessments and Fees

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision,

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Office of Thrift

Supervision (OTS) is proposing to

amend its assessments rule to more

accurately reflect the increased costs of

supervising 3-, 4-, and 5-rated

institutions. OTS proposes to set the

condition component of its assessments

regulation at 50 percent of the size

component for 3-rated institutions, and

100 percent of the size component for 4-

and 5-rated institutions.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 30, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21289

1 12 U.S.C. 1463(a).

2 12 U.S.C. 1467(k). See also 12 U.S.C. 1462a,

1463, 1467(a), 1467a.

3The UFIRS rating system was developed jointly

by all of the Federal banking regulators in an effort

to establish a uniform system using standard

criteria and definitions for rating in six different

rating areas: capital, assets, management, earnings,

liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk. See 61 FR

67021 (December 19, 1996). UFIRS is an effective

supervisory tool for evaluating the soundness of

financial institutions on a uniform basis, and for

identify those institutions requiring special

supervisory attention or concern.

4OTS has assessed a 50 percent premium on 4-

and 5-rated institutions since 1990. 55 FR 34519

(August 23, 1990). OTS began to impose a 25

percent premium on 3-rated institutions in 1998. 63

FR 65663 (November 30, 1998).

5OCC has proposed a similar increase to its

surcharge on 3-, 4- and 5-rated national banks. See

66 FR 17821 (April 4, 2001).

6As noted above, however, OTS does separately

consider the complexity of an institution’s

operations under the complexity component.

7 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

ADDRESSES: Mail: Send comments to

Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel’s

Office, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC

20552, Attention Docket No. 2001–30.

Delivery: Hand deliver comments to

the Guard’s Desk, East Lobby Entrance,

1700 G Street, NW., from 9:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. on business days, Attention

Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel’s

Office, Docket No. 2001–30.

Facsimiles: Send facsimile

transmissions to FAX Number (202)

906–6518, Attention Docket No. 2001–

30.

E-Mail: Send e-mails to

‘‘regs.comments@ots.treas.gov’’,

Attention Docket No. 2001–30, and

include your name and telephone

number.

Public Inspection: Comments and the

related index will also be posted on the

OTS Internet Site at

‘‘www.ots.treas.gov’’. In addition,

interested persons may inspect

comments at the Public Reference

Room, 1700 G St. NW., by appointment.

To make an appointment for access, call

(202) 906–5922, send an e-mail to

publicinfo@ots.treas.gov, or send a

facsimile transmission to (202) 906–

7755. (Prior notice identifying the

materials you will be requesting will

assist us in serving you.) Appointments

will be scheduled on business days

between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. In

most cases, appointments will be

available the next business day

following the date a request is received.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of Proposed Rule

OTS is charged with examining,

regulating, and providing for the safe

and sound operation of savings

associations.1 OTS funds its operations

through assessments on savings

associations and through other fees. The

Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA)

specifically authorizes the Director to

assess such fees to fund its direct and

indirect expenses, as the Director deems

necessary or appropriate.2

Under 12 CFR part 502, OTS

determines each institution’s

assessment by adding together three

components reflecting the size,

condition and complexity of an

institution. OTS computes the size

component by multiplying an

institution’s total assets (as reported on

the Thrift Financial Report (TFR)) by the

applicable assessment rate. The

condition component is a percentage of

the size component and is imposed on

institutions that have a 3-, 4-, or 5-

composite rating under the Uniform

Financial Institutions Rating System

(UFIRS) (also referred to as the CAMELS

rating system).3 OTS imposes a

complexity component if: (1) A thrift

administers more than $1 billion in trust

assets; (2) the outstanding balance of

assets fully or partially covered by

recourse obligations or direct credit

substitutes exceeds $1 billion; or (3) the

thrift services over $1 billion of loans

for others. OTS calculates the

complexity component by multiplying

set rates times the amounts by which an

association exceeds each particular

threshold.

Today’s proposed rule would revise

how OTS calculates the condition

component. Under the current rules, the

condition component equals 25 percent

of the thrift’s size component for 3-rated

institutions, and 50 percent of the

thrift’s size component for 4- or 5-rated

institutions.4 This premium was

designed to reflect the greater

supervisory resources demanded by

these lower-rated institutions.

OTS data shows that there is a

significant increase in the supervisory

demands on the regulator once an

institution’s rating moves to a ‘‘3,’’ and

an even greater increase when a thrift’s

rating moves to a ‘‘4’’ or a ‘‘5.’’ OTS

experience since 1998, when it last

adjusted this component, has shown

that the current premium for these

institutions does not adequately

compensate OTS for the additional

demands on its resources given the

substantial level of supervision required

by these institutions. Accordingly, OTS

proposes to raise the condition

component to 50 percent for 3-rated

institutions and 100 percent for 4- and

5-rated institutions.5

OTS plans to expeditiously publish a

final rule in this proceeding. OTS

anticipates that the final rule will be

effective for the July 31, 2001 semiannual assessment.

II. Comment Solicitation

Under the current regulation and the

proposed rule, the condition component

is set at a percentage of the size

component, which reflects total assets

reported on the TFR. Currently, OTS

does not directly consider the

complexity of an institution’s operations

in its calculation of the condition

component.6 It is concerned that the

complex off-balance sheet portfolio of

an institution with a 3-, 4- or 5-rating

may impose significantly greater

demands on the agency’s supervisory

resources. Accordingly, OTS

specifically seeks comment whether it

should consider the complexity of an

institution’s operations in its calculation

of the condition component. OTS also

seeks comment on how it should

calculate the assessment if it elects to

factor complexity into the condition

component. Should OTS, for example,

multiply the amount of the existing

complexity component by 50 or 100

percent, or use some other calculation?

OTS also seeks comment on all other

aspects of this rule. In addition, section

722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

requires federal banking agencies to use

‘‘plain language’’ in all proposed and

final rules published after January 1,

2000. OTS also invites your comments

on how to make this proposed rule

easier to understand. For example:

Do we clearly state the requirements

in the rule? If not, how could the rule

be more clearly stated?

Does the rule contain technical

language or jargon that is not clear? If

so, what language requires clarification?

Would a different format make the

rule easier to understand? If so, what

changes to the format would make the

rule easier to understand?

What else could we do to make the

rule easier to understand?

III. Executive Order 12866

The Director of OTS has determined

that this proposed rule does not

constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Under section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,7 OTS

has evaluated the effects this proposed

rulemaking would have on small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions. As

required, OTS has prepared the

21290 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

8 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1467, 1467a.

9 13 CFR 121.201 Division H (1998).

following initial regulatory flexibility

analysis.

A. Reasons for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rule; Legal Basis for the

Proposed Rule

OTS funds its operations through

assessments on savings associations and

through other fees. The Director of OTS

is authorized by the HOLA to impose

assessments.8 OTS is specifically

authorized to assess such fees to fund

the direct and indirect expenses of OTS,

as the Director deems necessary or

appropriate. 12 U.S.C. 1467(k).

As described above, OTS has found

that there is significant increase in

supervisory demands on the agency

when an institution’s rating moves to a

‘‘3’’ rating, and an even greater increase

when a thrift’s rating moves to a ‘‘4’’ or

a ‘‘5’’ rating. Accordingly, the current

OTS assessments regulation imposes a

premium on these institutions to reflect

the increased supervision costs.

OTS experience since 1998, when it

last revised its condition component,

has shown that the current premium for

3-, 4-, and 5-rated institutions does not

adequately compensate it for the

additional demands on its resources.

Therefore, OTS is attempting, through

this proposed rulemaking, to more

closely associate its costs and

assessments.

B. Effect of the Proposed Rule on Small

Savings Associations

The proposed rule could affect small

savings associations. The proposal

would have no effect on small

businesses or small organizations other

than small savings associations, and

would not affect small governmental

jurisdictions. Small savings associations

are generally defined, for Regulatory

Flexibility Act purposes, as those with

assets under $100 million.9

As discussed above, the proposed rule

would impose a premium equal to 50

percent of an association’s size

component for each 3-rated association,

and a 100 percent of an association’s

size component on each 4- or 5-rated

institution. OTS would assess this

premium regardless of the institution’s

size. As of April 10, 2001, 43 savings

associations were 3-rated and had assets

under $100 million. Currently, the semiannual assessment for a 3-rated

institution with $100 million in assets is

$19,380, exclusive of any complexity

component. Under the proposed rule,

this institution’s semi-annual

assessment would be $23,256—an

increase of $3,876. Other 3-rated small

savings associations would see their

assessments increase a lesser amount

depending on their asset size.

As of April 10, 2001, six institutions

were 4- or 5-rated and had assets under

$100 million. Currently, the semiannual assessment for a 4- or 5-rated

institution with $100 million in assets is

$23,256, exclusive of any complexity

component. Under the proposed rule,

this institution’s semi-annual

assessment would be $31,008—an

increase of $7,752. Other 4- and 5-rated

institutions would see their assessments

increase a lesser amount depending on

their asset size.

C. Alternatives

As discussed earlier, 3-, 4- and 5-rated

savings associations require more

supervisory attention than 1- or 2-rated

associations. Therefore, OTS has three

alternatives: impose extra assessments

on all 3-, 4- and 5-rated associations;

impose extra assessments on some subcategory of 3-, 4- and 5-rated

institutions; or require 1- and 2-rated

institutions to subsidize these extra

supervisory costs of 3-, 4- and 5-rated

institutions.

OTS believes it is most equitable to

match assessments with OTS’s

supervisory costs as far as possible.

Therefore, it proposes to increase the

amount of the condition component for

3-, 4-, and 5-rated associations. OTS

believes that requiring these institutions

to pay for their extra supervisory costs

would provide an incentive for those

institutions to improve their condition

and their ratings. OTS also believes that

the proposed condition component best

accomplishes OTS’s objective of closely

tailoring assessment rates to OTS’s

increased costs in supervising 3-, 4- and

5-rated institutions.

D. Other Matters

The proposed rule would impose no

reporting, recordkeeping, or other

compliance requirements. Assessments

would continue to be based on Thrift

Financial Reports that savings

associations otherwise must file with

OTS. OTS would continue to use its

current collection procedures.

Therefore, the proposed rule would

impose no new or additional reporting,

recordkeeping, or compliance

requirements.

There are no federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

proposed rule.

V. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L.

104–4 (Unfunded Mandates Act),

requires an agency to prepare a

budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a

federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by state, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. If a budgetary impact

statement is required, section 205 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act also requires

an agency to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives before promulgating a rule.

OTS has determined that the proposed

rule will not result in expenditures by

state, local, or tribal governments or by

the private sector of $100 million or

more. Accordingly, this rulemaking is

not subject to section 202 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 502

Assessments, Federal home loan

banks, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Savings associations.

Accordingly, the Office of Thrift

Supervision proposes to amend part

502, chapter V, title 12, Code of Federal

Regulations as set forth below.

PART 502—ASSESSMENTS AND FEES

1. The authority citation for part 502

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1467,

1467a.

2. Section 502.20 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 502.20 How does OTS determine my

condition component?

OTS uses the following chart to

determine your condition component.

If your component rating is:Then your condition component is:

1 or 2 .................. Zero.

3 ......................... 50 percent of your size

component.

4 or 5 .................. 100 percent of your size

component.

Dated: April 20, 2001.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Ellen Seidman,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01–10618 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–U