40487Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules
The committee discussed alternatives
to this action. The committee discussed
eliminating shipments of size 56
grapefruit all together. Several members
expressed that there is a market for size
56 grapefruit. Members favored the
percentage rule recommended because
it would supply a sufficient quantity of
small sizes should there be a demand
for size 56. Therefore, the motion to
eliminate size 56 was rejected. Another
alternative discussed was to do nothing.
However, the committee rejected this
option, taking in account that returns
would remain stagnant without action.
This rule would change the
requirements under the Florida citrus
marketing order. Handlers utilizing the
flexibility of the loan and transfer
aspects of this action would be required
to submit a form to the committee. The
rule would increase the reporting
burden on approximately 80 handlers of
red seedless grapefruit who would be
taking about 0.03 hour to complete each
report regarding allotment loans or
transfers. The information collection
requirements contained in this section
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13)
and assigned OMB number 0581–0094.
As with all Federal marketing order
programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
The Department has not identified
any relevant Federal rules that
duplicate, overlap or conflict with this
proposed rule. However, red seedless
grapefruit must meet the requirements
as specified in the U.S. Standards for
Grades of Florida Grapefruit (7 CFR
51.760 through 51.784) issued under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627).
In addition, the committee’s meeting
was widely publicized throughout the
citrus industry and all interested
persons were invited to attend the
meeting and participate in Committee
deliberations on all issues. Like all
Committee meetings, the May 28, 1997,
meeting was a public meeting and all
entities, both large and small, were able
to express views on this issue.
Interested persons are invited to submit
information on the regulatory and
informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.
A 15-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed
appropriate because this rule would
need to be in place as soon as possible
since handlers will begin shipping
grapefruit in September. In addition,
because of the nature of this rule,
handlers need time to consider their
allotment and how best to service their
customers. Also, the industry has been
discussing this issue for some time. The
committee has kept the industry well
informed on this issue. It has also been
widely discussed at various industry
and association meetings. Interested
persons have had time to determine and
express their positions. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements,
Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT,
TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS
GROWN IN FLORIDA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
Part 905 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. In § 905.306, paragraphs (a) and (b),
the word ‘‘During’’ is removed and the
words ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in
section 905.601, during’’ are added in
its place.
3. A new § 905.601 is added to read
as follows:
§ 905.601 Red seedless grapefruit
regulation 101.
The schedule below establishes the
weekly percentages to be used to
calculate each handler’s weekly
allotment of small sizes. If the minimum
size in effect under section 905.306 for
red seedless grapefruit is size 56,
handlers can fill their allotment with
size 56, size 48, or a combination of the
two sizes such that the total of these
shipments are within the established
weekly limits. If the minimum size in
effect under section 905.306 for red
seedless grapefruit is 48, handlers can
fill their allotment with size 48 red
seedless grapefruit such that the total of
these shipments are within the
established weekly limits. The weekly
percentages for sizes 48 and/or 56 red
seedless grapefruit grown in Florida,
which may be handled during the
specified weeks are as follows:
Week Weekly
percent-
age
(a) 9/15/97 through 9/21/97 ............ 25
(b) 9/22/97 through 9/28/97 ............ 25
(c) 9/29/97 through 10/5/97 ............ 25
Week Weekly
percent-
age
(d) 10/6/97 through 10/12/97 .......... 25
(e) 10/13/97 through 10/19/97 ........ 25
(f) 10/20/97 through 10/26/97 ......... 25
(g) 10/27/97 through 11/2/97 .......... 25
(h) 11/3/97 through 11/9/97 ............ 25
(i) 11/10/97 through 11/16/97 ......... 25
(j) 11/17/97 through 11/23/97 ......... 25
(k) 11/24/97 through 11/30/97 ........ 25
Dated: July 25, 1997.
Ronald L. Cioffi,
Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 97–20034 Filed 7–25–97; 1:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–U
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 312
RIN 3064–AC01
Prevention of Deposit Shifting
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is withdrawing a
proposed rule to implement a statute
prohibiting the shifting of deposits
insured under the Savings Association
Insurance Fund (SAIF) to deposits
insured under the Bank Insurance Fund
(BIF) for the purpose of evading the
assessment rates applicable to SAIF
deposits. The FDIC is taking this action
in response to comments received on
the proposed rule, which was published
in the Federal Register on February 11,
1997.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn
July 29, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph A. DiNuzzo, Counsel, (202) 898–
7349, Legal Division; or George Hanc,
Associate Director, Division of Research
and Statistics, (202) 898–8719, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Washington, D. C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Funds Act and the Deposit
Shifting Statute
A provision of the Deposit Insurance
Funds Act of 1996 (Funds Act) requires
the Comptroller of the Currency, the
Board of Directors of the FDIC, the
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and the Director of the
Office of Thrift Supervision (federal
banking agencies) to take ‘‘appropriate
actions’’ to prevent insured depository
institutions and holding companies
The committee discussed alternatives
to this action. The committee discussed
eliminating shipments of size 56
grapefruit all together. Several members
expressed that there is a market for size
56 grapefruit. Members favored the
percentage rule recommended because
it would supply a sufficient quantity of
small sizes should there be a demand
for size 56. Therefore, the motion to
eliminate size 56 was rejected. Another
alternative discussed was to do nothing.
However, the committee rejected this
option, taking in account that returns
would remain stagnant without action.
This rule would change the
requirements under the Florida citrus
marketing order. Handlers utilizing the
flexibility of the loan and transfer
aspects of this action would be required
to submit a form to the committee. The
rule would increase the reporting
burden on approximately 80 handlers of
red seedless grapefruit who would be
taking about 0.03 hour to complete each
report regarding allotment loans or
transfers. The information collection
requirements contained in this section
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13)
and assigned OMB number 0581–0094.
As with all Federal marketing order
programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
The Department has not identified
any relevant Federal rules that
duplicate, overlap or conflict with this
proposed rule. However, red seedless
grapefruit must meet the requirements
as specified in the U.S. Standards for
Grades of Florida Grapefruit (7 CFR
51.760 through 51.784) issued under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627).
In addition, the committee’s meeting
was widely publicized throughout the
citrus industry and all interested
persons were invited to attend the
meeting and participate in Committee
deliberations on all issues. Like all
Committee meetings, the May 28, 1997,
meeting was a public meeting and all
entities, both large and small, were able
to express views on this issue.
Interested persons are invited to submit
information on the regulatory and
informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.
A 15-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed
appropriate because this rule would
need to be in place as soon as possible
since handlers will begin shipping
grapefruit in September. In addition,
because of the nature of this rule,
handlers need time to consider their
allotment and how best to service their
customers. Also, the industry has been
discussing this issue for some time. The
committee has kept the industry well
informed on this issue. It has also been
widely discussed at various industry
and association meetings. Interested
persons have had time to determine and
express their positions. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements,
Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT,
TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS
GROWN IN FLORIDA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
Part 905 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. In § 905.306, paragraphs (a) and (b),
the word ‘‘During’’ is removed and the
words ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in
section 905.601, during’’ are added in
its place.
3. A new § 905.601 is added to read
as follows:
§ 905.601 Red seedless grapefruit
regulation 101.
The schedule below establishes the
weekly percentages to be used to
calculate each handler’s weekly
allotment of small sizes. If the minimum
size in effect under section 905.306 for
red seedless grapefruit is size 56,
handlers can fill their allotment with
size 56, size 48, or a combination of the
two sizes such that the total of these
shipments are within the established
weekly limits. If the minimum size in
effect under section 905.306 for red
seedless grapefruit is 48, handlers can
fill their allotment with size 48 red
seedless grapefruit such that the total of
these shipments are within the
established weekly limits. The weekly
percentages for sizes 48 and/or 56 red
seedless grapefruit grown in Florida,
which may be handled during the
specified weeks are as follows:
Week Weekly
percent-
age
(a) 9/15/97 through 9/21/97 ............ 25
(b) 9/22/97 through 9/28/97 ............ 25
(c) 9/29/97 through 10/5/97 ............ 25
Week Weekly
percent-
age
(d) 10/6/97 through 10/12/97 .......... 25
(e) 10/13/97 through 10/19/97 ........ 25
(f) 10/20/97 through 10/26/97 ......... 25
(g) 10/27/97 through 11/2/97 .......... 25
(h) 11/3/97 through 11/9/97 ............ 25
(i) 11/10/97 through 11/16/97 ......... 25
(j) 11/17/97 through 11/23/97 ......... 25
(k) 11/24/97 through 11/30/97 ........ 25
Dated: July 25, 1997.
Ronald L. Cioffi,
Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 97–20034 Filed 7–25–97; 1:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–U
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 312
RIN 3064–AC01
Prevention of Deposit Shifting
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is withdrawing a
proposed rule to implement a statute
prohibiting the shifting of deposits
insured under the Savings Association
Insurance Fund (SAIF) to deposits
insured under the Bank Insurance Fund
(BIF) for the purpose of evading the
assessment rates applicable to SAIF
deposits. The FDIC is taking this action
in response to comments received on
the proposed rule, which was published
in the Federal Register on February 11,
1997.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn
July 29, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph A. DiNuzzo, Counsel, (202) 898–
7349, Legal Division; or George Hanc,
Associate Director, Division of Research
and Statistics, (202) 898–8719, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Washington, D. C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Funds Act and the Deposit
Shifting Statute
A provision of the Deposit Insurance
Funds Act of 1996 (Funds Act) requires
the Comptroller of the Currency, the
Board of Directors of the FDIC, the
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and the Director of the
Office of Thrift Supervision (federal
banking agencies) to take ‘‘appropriate
actions’’ to prevent insured depository
institutions and holding companies
40488 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules
1 Although currently the range of risk-based
assessments for BIF-assessable and SAIF-assessable
deposits is the same, a higher assessment payable
to the Financing Corporation must be paid on SAIF-
assessable deposits. Thus, the overall assessment is
higher for SAIF-assessable deposits than for BIF-
assessable deposits.
2 Pursuant to this requirement, the FDIC issued a
final rule imposing a special assessment on
institutions holding SAIF-assessable deposits in an
amount sufficient to increase the SAIF reserve ratio
to the designated reserve ratio of 1.25 percent as of
October 1, 1996. 61 FR 53834 (Oct. 16, 1996), to be
codified at 12 CFR 327.41.
from ‘‘facilitating or encouraging’’ the
shifting of deposits from SAIF-
assessable deposits to BIF-assessable
deposits for the purpose of evading the
assessments applicable to SAIF-
assessable deposits.1 Pub. L. 104–208,
110 Stat. 3009–485, section 2703(d).
This statutory prohibition on deposit
shifting (the deposit shifting statute)
expressly authorizes the FDIC to issue
regulations, including regulations
defining terms used in the statute, to
prevent the shifting of deposits. The
deposit shifting statute terminates on
the earlier of December 31, 1999, or the
date on which the last federally
chartered savings association ceases to
exist.
The Funds Act was enacted as part of
the Economic Growth and Regulatory
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, Pub.
L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–479 through
3009–498, sections 2701—2711, and
became effective September 30, 1996.
The Funds Act provided for the
capitalization of the SAIF through a
special assessment on all depository
institutions that hold SAIF-assessable
deposits.2
II. The Proposed Rule
In February 1997 the FDIC issued a
proposed rule to implement the deposit
shifting statute. 62 FR 6139 (Feb. 11,
1997). The proposed rule consisted of
two basic provisions. The first reiterated
the requirement in the statute that the
respective federal banking agency deny
applications and object to notices filed
by depository institutions or depository
institution holding companies if the
purpose of the underlying transaction
was to evade assessments payable on
SAIF-assessable deposits. The second
provision of the proposed rule would
have established a presumption under
which entrance and exit fees would be
imposed upon depository institutions
for deposits that are shifted from SAIF-
assessable deposits to BIF-assessable
deposits in violation of the deposit
shifting statute.
III. Comments on the Proposed Rule
The comment period for the proposed
rule closed on April 14, 1997. The FDIC
received fifteen comments on the
proposal. Nine of the comments were
from industry trade groups, four from
community banks, one from a bank
holding company and one from a
savings and loan holding company.
Nine of the comments opposed the
proposed rule. They argued, in essence,
that a regulation is unnecessary given
that SAIF is now capitalized and the
assessment rate differential between BIF
and SAIF institutions is not significant.
Some who opposed the proposed rule
contended that it is unworkably vague,
particularly because it does not define
key terms, such as ‘‘deposit shifting’’
and ‘‘ordinary course of business.’’
Of the national industry trade groups,
one said that a regulation is not
necessary and, instead, the agencies
should just continue to monitor deposit
shifting. Another commented that a
regulation would not be necessary, but
that the FDIC should consider issuing a
policy statement to provide guidance to
the industry. A third national trade
group said the regulation would be an
appropriate measure to enforce the
deposit shifting statue. One state
industry trade association voiced
support for the proposed rule. Five
others commented that a regulation was
unnecessary.
The four community banks all
commented that the regulation would be
an appropriate means to enforce the
statute. The bank holding company that
commented detailed five areas of
concern with the proposed rule,
essentially citing a ‘‘vagueness’’
problem. The comment filed by the
savings and loan holding company
alleged, among other things, that the
rule would be illegal under the U.S.
Constitution and the Administrative
Procedure Act.
IV. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule
Based on a review of the comments
and the FDIC’s internal review of the
applicable issues, the Board of Directors
of the FDIC has decided to withdraw the
proposed rule. The Board agrees with
the majority of those who commented
that the deposit shifting statute can and
should be enforced on a case-by case
basis and, thus, a regulation to
implement and enforce the statute is
unnecessary.
This decision is based on several
factors: (1) The diminished differential
between the assessments paid on BIF-
assessable deposits and SAIF-assessable
deposits; (2) the lack of evidence of any
significant, widespread deposit shifting
among depository institutions; (3) the
regulatory burden that might result from
the issuance of a final rule on deposit
shifting; and (4) the ability of the FDIC
and the other federal banking agencies
to enforce the deposit shifting statute on
a case-by-case basis through the
monitoring of any such activity by
reviewing quarterly financial reports
and by conducting on-site examinations,
if necessary.
The Board has decided, therefore, in
coordination with the other federal
banking agencies, that the deposit
shifting statute should be enforced on a
case-by-case basis. The FDIC, however,
will monitor the effectiveness of this
approach and, if necessary, reconsider
in the future whether a regulation is
needed to implement the deposit
shifting statute.
By the order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 22nd day
of July, 1997.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97–19943 Filed 7–28–97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 97–ASO–10]
Proposed Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Anniston, AL
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to
amend the Class E airspace area at
Anniston, AL. Global Positioning
System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 3 and
RWY 21 Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) have been
developed for Talladega Municipal
Airport, and a GPS RWY 20 SIAP has
been developed for St. Clair County
Airport. Additional controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) is needed to
accommodate these SIAPs, and for
Instrumental Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at these airports and the
Anniston Metropolitan Airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 9, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the
proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No.
97–ASO–10, Manager, Airspace Branch,
ASO–520, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined
in the Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550,
1 Although currently the range of risk-based
assessments for BIF-assessable and SAIF-assessable
deposits is the same, a higher assessment payable
to the Financing Corporation must be paid on SAIF-
assessable deposits. Thus, the overall assessment is
higher for SAIF-assessable deposits than for BIF-
assessable deposits.
2 Pursuant to this requirement, the FDIC issued a
final rule imposing a special assessment on
institutions holding SAIF-assessable deposits in an
amount sufficient to increase the SAIF reserve ratio
to the designated reserve ratio of 1.25 percent as of
October 1, 1996. 61 FR 53834 (Oct. 16, 1996), to be
codified at 12 CFR 327.41.
from ‘‘facilitating or encouraging’’ the
shifting of deposits from SAIF-
assessable deposits to BIF-assessable
deposits for the purpose of evading the
assessments applicable to SAIF-
assessable deposits.1 Pub. L. 104–208,
110 Stat. 3009–485, section 2703(d).
This statutory prohibition on deposit
shifting (the deposit shifting statute)
expressly authorizes the FDIC to issue
regulations, including regulations
defining terms used in the statute, to
prevent the shifting of deposits. The
deposit shifting statute terminates on
the earlier of December 31, 1999, or the
date on which the last federally
chartered savings association ceases to
exist.
The Funds Act was enacted as part of
the Economic Growth and Regulatory
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, Pub.
L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–479 through
3009–498, sections 2701—2711, and
became effective September 30, 1996.
The Funds Act provided for the
capitalization of the SAIF through a
special assessment on all depository
institutions that hold SAIF-assessable
deposits.2
II. The Proposed Rule
In February 1997 the FDIC issued a
proposed rule to implement the deposit
shifting statute. 62 FR 6139 (Feb. 11,
1997). The proposed rule consisted of
two basic provisions. The first reiterated
the requirement in the statute that the
respective federal banking agency deny
applications and object to notices filed
by depository institutions or depository
institution holding companies if the
purpose of the underlying transaction
was to evade assessments payable on
SAIF-assessable deposits. The second
provision of the proposed rule would
have established a presumption under
which entrance and exit fees would be
imposed upon depository institutions
for deposits that are shifted from SAIF-
assessable deposits to BIF-assessable
deposits in violation of the deposit
shifting statute.
III. Comments on the Proposed Rule
The comment period for the proposed
rule closed on April 14, 1997. The FDIC
received fifteen comments on the
proposal. Nine of the comments were
from industry trade groups, four from
community banks, one from a bank
holding company and one from a
savings and loan holding company.
Nine of the comments opposed the
proposed rule. They argued, in essence,
that a regulation is unnecessary given
that SAIF is now capitalized and the
assessment rate differential between BIF
and SAIF institutions is not significant.
Some who opposed the proposed rule
contended that it is unworkably vague,
particularly because it does not define
key terms, such as ‘‘deposit shifting’’
and ‘‘ordinary course of business.’’
Of the national industry trade groups,
one said that a regulation is not
necessary and, instead, the agencies
should just continue to monitor deposit
shifting. Another commented that a
regulation would not be necessary, but
that the FDIC should consider issuing a
policy statement to provide guidance to
the industry. A third national trade
group said the regulation would be an
appropriate measure to enforce the
deposit shifting statue. One state
industry trade association voiced
support for the proposed rule. Five
others commented that a regulation was
unnecessary.
The four community banks all
commented that the regulation would be
an appropriate means to enforce the
statute. The bank holding company that
commented detailed five areas of
concern with the proposed rule,
essentially citing a ‘‘vagueness’’
problem. The comment filed by the
savings and loan holding company
alleged, among other things, that the
rule would be illegal under the U.S.
Constitution and the Administrative
Procedure Act.
IV. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule
Based on a review of the comments
and the FDIC’s internal review of the
applicable issues, the Board of Directors
of the FDIC has decided to withdraw the
proposed rule. The Board agrees with
the majority of those who commented
that the deposit shifting statute can and
should be enforced on a case-by case
basis and, thus, a regulation to
implement and enforce the statute is
unnecessary.
This decision is based on several
factors: (1) The diminished differential
between the assessments paid on BIF-
assessable deposits and SAIF-assessable
deposits; (2) the lack of evidence of any
significant, widespread deposit shifting
among depository institutions; (3) the
regulatory burden that might result from
the issuance of a final rule on deposit
shifting; and (4) the ability of the FDIC
and the other federal banking agencies
to enforce the deposit shifting statute on
a case-by-case basis through the
monitoring of any such activity by
reviewing quarterly financial reports
and by conducting on-site examinations,
if necessary.
The Board has decided, therefore, in
coordination with the other federal
banking agencies, that the deposit
shifting statute should be enforced on a
case-by-case basis. The FDIC, however,
will monitor the effectiveness of this
approach and, if necessary, reconsider
in the future whether a regulation is
needed to implement the deposit
shifting statute.
By the order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 22nd day
of July, 1997.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97–19943 Filed 7–28–97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 97–ASO–10]
Proposed Amendment to Class E
Airspace; Anniston, AL
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to
amend the Class E airspace area at
Anniston, AL. Global Positioning
System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 3 and
RWY 21 Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) have been
developed for Talladega Municipal
Airport, and a GPS RWY 20 SIAP has
been developed for St. Clair County
Airport. Additional controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) is needed to
accommodate these SIAPs, and for
Instrumental Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at these airports and the
Anniston Metropolitan Airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 9, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the
proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No.
97–ASO–10, Manager, Airspace Branch,
ASO–520, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined
in the Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550,