19938 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

well as the public version, as described

above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record, which will also include

all comments submitted directly in

writing. The official rulemaking record

is the paper record maintained at the

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this notice.

VI. Existing Stocks

For the purposes of this notice,

existing stocks are defined as those

stocks of the propargite products with

the EPA registration numbers 400–82,

400–83, 400–89, 400–104, 400–154,

400–426, and 400–427 that are labeled

with any of the ten uses subject to

deletion by this notice and were

packaged, labeled, and/or released for

shipment prior to April 26, 1996.

EPA has an established policy for

determinations concerning the sale,

distribution, and use of existing stocks

of pesticides where the registration has

been amended, cancelled, or suspended

under FIFRA sections 3, 4, or 6 dated

June 26, 1991, (56 FR 29362). That

policy states that in cases where EPA

has identified a significant risk concern

and the registration has been amended,

EPA will make existing stocks

determinations on a case-by-case basis.

In most cases EPA will not permit the

continued sale, distribution, or use of a

product labeled with deleted uses

unless it can be demonstrated that the

benefits exceed the risks. EPA reserves

the right to amend this existing stocks

provision, should conditions warrant

such amendment.

EPA has determined that the limited

continued sale and use of existing

stocks of propargite products labeled for

the deleted uses permitted under

paragraphs (1) and (2) of the terms and

conditions contained in section IV of

this notice, will not cause unreasonable

adverse effects. Under these provisions,

Uniroyal will not sell or distribute any

propargite products containing the

deleted uses. In addition, Uniroyal will

relabel stocks at the distributor and

retailer levels to reflect the deletion of

the ten uses. Uniroyal will also accept

return of products from users.

Accordingly, EPA believes very little

product labeled for use on the proposed

deleted crops will be used during the

1996 growing season.

VII. Proposed Use Deletion/

Cancellation Order

The following Use Deletion/

Cancellation Order and Approval of

Uniroyal’s request for deletion of uses

will take effect on August 1, 1996 unless

before that date EPA publishes a notice

in the Federal Register modifying this

proposed order.

EPA approves Uniroyal’s request for

deletion of the apple, apricot, cranberry,

fig, green bean, lima bean, peach, pear,

plum, and strawberry uses from the

propargite products with EPA

registration numbers 400–82, 400–83,

400–89, 400–104, 400–154, 400–426,

and 400–427, effective August 1, 1996

notice. All propargite products

containing instructions for use on

apples, apricots, cranberries, figs, green

beans, lima beans, peaches, pears,

plums, or strawberries are cancelled,

effective August 1, 1996 notice.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–10910 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

[BM–23–APR–96–02]

Policy Statement on Association

Structure

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: Section 7.8 of the Farm Credit

Act of 1971, as amended, provides the

Farm Credit Administration (FCA) with

the authority to approve mergers of

unlike associations. With limited

exceptions, the FCA has not allowed

unlike association mergers unless the

territories of the merging entities have

been the same. The FCA Board will now

consider merger requests from unlike

associations whose territories are not

the same when such mergers promote

efficiencies and improve services to

borrowers, provided the resulting

institutions are financially viable and

any adverse impact on other Farm

Credit System institutions is minimal.

The FCA Board Policy Statement on

Association Structure describes the

criteria it will consider when acting on

such merger requests. However, nothing

in the Policy Statement limits the FCA

Board’s discretion with respect to

charter requests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elna

J. Luopa, Chief, Corporate Affairs

Division, Office of Special Supervision

and Corporate Affairs, (703) 883-4475;

or Victor A. Cohen, Associate General

Counsel, Regulatory Enforcement

Division, Office of General Counsel,

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm

Credit Drive, McLean Virginia 22102-

5090, (703) 883-4020, TDD (703) 883-

4444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the Board’s policy statement on

association structure is set forth below

in its entirety:

Farm Credit Administration Board

Policy Statement on Association

Structure, BM–23–APR–96–02, FCA–

PS–70

Effective Date: April 23, 1996.

Effect on Previous Action: Supersedes

FCA–PS–27 [BM–21–NOV–88–02] and

FCA–PS–30 [BM–06–JAN–89–07].

Source of Authority: Sections 5.17,

7.8, and 7.11 of the Farm Credit Act of

1971, as amended.

In the interest of providing the highest

quality and most efficient service to

agricultural borrowers, the Farm Credit

Administration (FCA) encourages Farm

Credit System (System) institutions to

select structural options that are most

conducive to that goal. The FCA Board

will favor charter requests that promote

such efficiency, provided they result in

viable financial institutions and any

adverse effect on other System

institutions is minimal.

The FCA believes that agricultural

credit associations (ACAs), formed

pursuant to section 7.8(a) of the Farm

Credit Act of l971, as amended, can

promote such efficiency because of their

ability to offer a broad array of services

to borrowers. However, when the

chartered territories of the merging

associations are not identical, the FCA

must determine whether to disapprove

the merger application or to charter an

ACA with (1) Full lending authority

throughout its territory, resulting in

competition with one or more adjoining

associations; or (2) different lending

authorities in different parts of its

territory (bifurcated charter) with

exclusive lending authorities in the

common territory. Except for several

ACAs formed as a result of section 411

of the Agricultural Credit Act of l987,

the FCA generally has denied charter

requests for the merger of unlike

associations when the boundaries of the

merging entities were not the same.

These actions were taken to protect

exclusive charters, to discourage intraSystem competition, and to prevent the

administrative difficulties caused by

bifurcated charters. The FCA Board

prefers charters that authorize a full

range of services throughout an ACA’s
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19939

territory. However, the FCA recognizes

that permitting only exclusive, fullservice ACA charters would limit the

potential for achieving additional

structural efficiencies at the association

level when voluntary realignment

cannot be achieved.

Consequently, the FCA Board has

determined that, in acting on ACA

charter requests, it will attempt to strike

an appropriate balance between the

efficiencies gained from the merger and

any potential adverse impact the

requested charter may have on

borrowers, other associations, and the

System. While the Board prefers that the

affected associations resolve their

territorial issues to permit the chartering

of non-overlapping, full-service ACAs,

the Board will not rule out granting a

permanent, full-service charter that

overlaps another association’s territory

if the adverse effect caused by any

resulting competition is minimal,

especially when the affected association

board(s) consents. Any institution

whose charter would be affected by

such a merger request would have the

opportunity to comment on the request.

Should a nonexclusive charter be

issued, the FCA Board would consider

an application from an affected

association(s) to convert to an ACA or

for some other reasonable alternative. In

addition, the Board may approve a

request for a bifurcated charter when

administrative difficulties are

outweighed by the benefits to be

derived. However, since the Board

believes a bifurcated charter should be

an interim step to a full-service ACA, it

encourages the newly formed ACA and

the affected association(s) to continue to

work toward territorial realignment and

full-service, non-overlapping ACAs..

Nothing in this policy statement shall

limit the Board’s discretion with respect

to charter requests. Each request will be

considered on its individual merits. In

exercising its discretion, the Board will

consider the following factors and any

other factors the Board determines

relevant at the time of the request.

1. Projected operating efficiencies to

be realized as a result of the merger.

2. Projected improvements in the

quality and range of services to be

offered borrowers.

3. Potential for adverse financial

consequences on other associations

because of any competition that will

result, and whether the affected

association board(s) consents to the

competition.

4. The effects of other alternatives that

may be requested by either the merging

constituents or any affected

association(s).

This policy statement supersedes the

November 221, 1988 FCA Board Policy

Statement on Granting Nonexclusive

Charters to Associations and the January

6, l989 FCA Board Policy Statement on

Section 411 Mergers Resulting in

Nonexclusive Charters.

Adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996 by

order of the Board.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 96–10988 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission;

Comments Requested

April 29, 1996.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications,

as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burden invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commissions

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 2, 1996. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESS: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications, Room 234, 1919 M

St., NW., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to dconway@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0641.

Title: Notification to File Progress

Report.

Form No.: FCC Form 218–I.

Type of Review: Revision of existing

collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit, Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 587.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Total Annual Burden: 587 hours.

Needs and Uses: The data collected is

used by Commission staff to determine

whether the licensee is entitled to their

authorization to operate. From this data,

the Commission is able to confirm that

service has been made available to at

least 30 percent of the population or

land area within three years of license

grant and 50 percent of the population

or land area within five years of license

grant. The data collected ensures

licensees are making proper use of the

frequency spectrum.

The Commission’s rules were recently

revised to eliminate the requirement for

a progress report at the conclusion of

the one year benchmark, thereby

decreasing the burden on the applicant

and the Commission.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11018 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Policy Statement on the Fitness and

Integrity of Lessors of Real Property to

the FDIC

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Statement of policy; correction.

SUMMARY: In the statement of policy

beginning on page 5554 in the issue of

Tuesday, February 13, 1996, make the

following correction:

Change the reference ‘‘paragraph III.B.

(1) through (4) to ‘‘paragraph III.B. (1)

through (5)’’ each time it appears in the

following places:

—On page 5555, in the third column, in

paragraph V.A. (1)(b);

—On page 5556, in the second column,

in paragraph V.B. (1)(a), and in the

third column in paragraph V.B.(4).