25868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96–12970 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–F
Notice of Public Information
Collections Submitted to OMB for
Review and Approval
May 17, 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 June 24, 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 and
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236
NEOB 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503 or
fain_t@a1.eop.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: 3060-0441.
Title: Section 90.621(b)(4) Selection
and assignment of frequencies.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision to an
existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State,
Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 33.
Estimated Time Per Response: 1.5
hours per respondent; however the
Commission estimates 75% of the
respondents will contract out the
burden of responding. It will take these
respondents approximately 30 minutes
to obtain these services.
Total Annual Burden: 25 hours.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: The
Commission estimates 75% of the
applicants will file this information
electronically. These respondents will
incur approximately $69 for on-line
filing charges. Respondents filing
manually, will incur approximately
$1.15 in postal charges. Respondents
hiring an attorney or engineer to prepare
the information will incur
approximately $300 in charges.
Needs and Uses: Applicants wish to
locate co-channel systems less than 70
miles from an existing system operating
on the same channel may do so upon
specific request. If the request falls
under a Table provided in the rule,
certain information about the co-
channel station is required. In this
instance no waiver of the short spacing
rule is required. If the request is for
distances less than those prescribed in
the table, a waiver of the short spacing
rule is required. The Commission uses
the information to determine whether to
grant licenses to applicants whose
systems do not satisfy mileage
separation requirements.
OMB Number: 3060-0110.
Title: Application for Renewal of
License for AM, FM, TV Translator or
LPTV Station.
Form Number: FCC 303-S.
Respondents: Business or other for-
profit.
Type of Review: Revision of an
existing collection.
Number of Respondents: 4,658.
Estimated Time Per Response: 2 - 5.5
hours.
Total Annual Burden: 6,230.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: The
Commission estimates 50% of the AM/
FM/FM Translator radio broadcast
licensees and 75% of the TV/TV
translator broadcast licensees will use a
communications attorney to complete
and file the FCC Form 303–S. This will
cost approximately $200 per hour.
Licensees must also submit a $115
application fee for each commercial
application by a AM/FM/TV broadcast
station. The fee for each FM/TV
Translator Broadcast station application
is $45. Additionally, AM, FM TV or
LPTV licensee must give local public
notice of the filing of the renewal
application. AM/FM/TV stations that
are off-the-air must give local public
notice by publishing an announcement
6 times in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community or area
being served. FM/TV Translator stations
must give local public notice by
publishing an announcement once in a
newspaper of general circulation. The
cost of this publication is estimated to
be $226 per publication.
Needs and Uses: On February 8, 1996,
President Clinton signed into law the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Section 204 of this Act directs the
Commission to collect new information
from commercial and noncommercial
television station licensees filing their
renewal applications after May 1, 1995.
These renewal applicants must submit
an Exhibit summarizing the written
comments and suggestions received
from the public that ‘‘comment on the
applicant’s programming, if any, and
that are characterized by the commenter
as constituting violent programming.’’
Until the FCC 303-S is revised, the
Commission will use a supplement to
solicit the required information. FCC
Form 303-S is used in applying for
renewal of license for a commercial or
noncommercial AM, FM or TV
broadcast station and FM translator, TV
translator or Low Power TV broadcast
stations. It can also be used in seeking
the joint renewal of licenses for an FM
or TV translator station and its co-
owned primary FM, TV or LPTV station.
The data is used by FCC staff to assure
that the necessary reports connected
with the renewal application have been
filed and that licensee continues to meet
basic statutory requirements to remain a
licensee of a broadcast station. The data
collected with respect to violent
programming will be used by the
Commission in determining what, if
any, changes in the Commission’s
policies and regulations are required.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96–12966 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–F
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96–12970 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–F
Notice of Public Information
Collections Submitted to OMB for
Review and Approval
May 17, 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 June 24, 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 and
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236
NEOB 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503 or
fain_t@a1.eop.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: 3060-0441.
Title: Section 90.621(b)(4) Selection
and assignment of frequencies.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision to an
existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State,
Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 33.
Estimated Time Per Response: 1.5
hours per respondent; however the
Commission estimates 75% of the
respondents will contract out the
burden of responding. It will take these
respondents approximately 30 minutes
to obtain these services.
Total Annual Burden: 25 hours.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: The
Commission estimates 75% of the
applicants will file this information
electronically. These respondents will
incur approximately $69 for on-line
filing charges. Respondents filing
manually, will incur approximately
$1.15 in postal charges. Respondents
hiring an attorney or engineer to prepare
the information will incur
approximately $300 in charges.
Needs and Uses: Applicants wish to
locate co-channel systems less than 70
miles from an existing system operating
on the same channel may do so upon
specific request. If the request falls
under a Table provided in the rule,
certain information about the co-
channel station is required. In this
instance no waiver of the short spacing
rule is required. If the request is for
distances less than those prescribed in
the table, a waiver of the short spacing
rule is required. The Commission uses
the information to determine whether to
grant licenses to applicants whose
systems do not satisfy mileage
separation requirements.
OMB Number: 3060-0110.
Title: Application for Renewal of
License for AM, FM, TV Translator or
LPTV Station.
Form Number: FCC 303-S.
Respondents: Business or other for-
profit.
Type of Review: Revision of an
existing collection.
Number of Respondents: 4,658.
Estimated Time Per Response: 2 - 5.5
hours.
Total Annual Burden: 6,230.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: The
Commission estimates 50% of the AM/
FM/FM Translator radio broadcast
licensees and 75% of the TV/TV
translator broadcast licensees will use a
communications attorney to complete
and file the FCC Form 303–S. This will
cost approximately $200 per hour.
Licensees must also submit a $115
application fee for each commercial
application by a AM/FM/TV broadcast
station. The fee for each FM/TV
Translator Broadcast station application
is $45. Additionally, AM, FM TV or
LPTV licensee must give local public
notice of the filing of the renewal
application. AM/FM/TV stations that
are off-the-air must give local public
notice by publishing an announcement
6 times in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community or area
being served. FM/TV Translator stations
must give local public notice by
publishing an announcement once in a
newspaper of general circulation. The
cost of this publication is estimated to
be $226 per publication.
Needs and Uses: On February 8, 1996,
President Clinton signed into law the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Section 204 of this Act directs the
Commission to collect new information
from commercial and noncommercial
television station licensees filing their
renewal applications after May 1, 1995.
These renewal applicants must submit
an Exhibit summarizing the written
comments and suggestions received
from the public that ‘‘comment on the
applicant’s programming, if any, and
that are characterized by the commenter
as constituting violent programming.’’
Until the FCC 303-S is revised, the
Commission will use a supplement to
solicit the required information. FCC
Form 303-S is used in applying for
renewal of license for a commercial or
noncommercial AM, FM or TV
broadcast station and FM translator, TV
translator or Low Power TV broadcast
stations. It can also be used in seeking
the joint renewal of licenses for an FM
or TV translator station and its co-
owned primary FM, TV or LPTV station.
The data is used by FCC staff to assure
that the necessary reports connected
with the renewal application have been
filed and that licensee continues to meet
basic statutory requirements to remain a
licensee of a broadcast station. The data
collected with respect to violent
programming will be used by the
Commission in determining what, if
any, changes in the Commission’s
policies and regulations are required.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96–12966 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–F
25869Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Investment in Leeway Securities;
Rescission of Statement of Policy
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Rescission of Statement of
Policy.
SUMMARY: As part of the FDIC’s
systematic review of its regulations and
written policies under section 303(a) of
the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(CDRI), the FDIC is rescinding its policy
statement concerning bank investments
under state leeway laws (Statement).
The Statement indicates that the FDIC
will not criticize investments of a civic
or community nature if they meet
reasonable limits set out in the
Statement. The FDIC is rescinding the
Statement because it is now outmoded.
The rescission does not reflect any
substantive change in the FDIC’s
supervisory attitude toward this type of
investment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Statement is
rescinded effective May 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert W. Walsh, Manager, Division of
Supervision (202) 898–6911; Gerald J.
Gervino, Senior Attorney, (202) 898–
3723, Legal Division, FDIC, 550 17th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC
is conducting a systematic review of its
regulations and written policies. Section
303(a) of the CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4803(a))
requires each federal banking agency to
streamline and modify its regulations
and written policies in order to improve
efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs,
and eliminate unwarranted constraints
on credit availability. Section 303(a)
also requires each federal banking
agency to remove inconsistencies and
outmoded and duplicative requirements
from its regulations and written
policies.
As part of this review, the FDIC has
determined that the Statement is
outmoded, and that the FDIC’s written
policies can be streamlined by its
elimination.
The Statement was published on
August 4, 1972, 37 FR 16228 and
amended on March 7, 1974, 39 FR 8956.
The Statement was designed to clarify
the FDIC’s position with regard to bank
investments under state leeway laws.
Leeway laws were adopted by many
states to give depository institutions a
way to make direct investments in civic
or community related projects that
would otherwise be prohibited under
the standard bank or thrift charter. It
was felt that financial institutions were
receiving inconsistent messages from
their regulators. While community
beneficial projects were encouraged by
state agencies, the credit quality of the
related investments was being
criticized. The FDIC did not want to
inhibit banks from making investments
that were primarily of a civic or
community nature. Therefore the
Statement indicated that FDIC
examiners would not criticize these
leeway investments provided they were
made within reasonable limits
established by state law and aggregated
no more than 10 percent of capital and
surplus, whichever was less.
Section 24 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831a,
prohibits equity investments by an
insured state bank if the investment is
not of a type and in an amount that is
permissible for a national bank. 12 CFR
part 362 implements this statutory
provision. Both the statute and the
regulation contain exceptions for
investments as a limited partner in a
partnership, the sole purpose of which
is the acquisition, rehabilitation or new
construction of qualified housing
projects. In addition, the National Bank
Act was amended since the last
amendment to the Statement in 1974 to
expressly provide authority for a
national bank to make investments that
are designed to primarily promote the
public welfare. Such investments can be
made up to a maximum of 10 percent
of unimpaired capital and surplus. (12
U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh). Finally,
community welfare investments are
encouraged under the FDIC’s
regulations implementing the
Community Reinvestment Act which
was enacted by Congress subsequent to
the adoption of the agency’s Statement.
Consistent with that Act and the FDIC’s
regulations, the FDIC will generally not
criticize commercially viable
community welfare investment. Thus,
the rescission of the Statement does not
signal any change in the manner in
which the FDIC evaluates investments
which are the subject of the current
Statement. In view of this current
statutory and regulatory direction, the
Statement is no longer necessary.
For the above reasons, the Statement is
hereby rescinded.
By Order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of
May, 1996.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96–12927 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
Capital Forbearance; Rescission of
Policy Statement
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Rescission of policy statement.
SUMMARY: As part of the FDIC’s
systematic review of its regulations and
written policies under section 303(a) of
the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(CDRI), the FDIC is rescinding its
Guidelines for Implementing a Policy of
Capital Forbearance (Policy Statement).
The Policy Statement provided
guidelines for certain well-managed
viable banks to apply to the FDIC for
capital forbearance. The FDIC is
rescinding the Policy Statement because
it is now outmoded.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Policy Statement is
rescinded May 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert W. Walsh, Manager, (202) 898–
6911, Division of Supervision; Jamey
Basham, Counsel, (202) 898–7265, Legal
Division, FDIC, 550 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC
is conducting a systematic review of its
regulations and written policies. Section
303(a) of the CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4803(a))
requires each federal banking agency to
streamline and modify its regulations
and written policies in order to improve
efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs,
and eliminate unwarranted constraints
on credit availability. Section 303(a)
also requires each federal banking
agency to remove inconsistencies and
outmoded and duplicative requirements
from its regulations and written
policies.
As part of this review, the FDIC has
determined that the Policy Statement is
outmoded, and that the FDIC’s written
policies can be streamlined by its
elimination.
The FDIC adopted the Policy
Statement on July 7, 1987. 52 FR 26182
(July 13, 1987). The Policy Statement
provided guidelines under which
certain banks, which were well-
managed, solvent and viable but were
having difficulty raising needed capital
because they served an inadequately
diversified economic sector caught in a
severe downturn, could apply to the
FDIC for capital forbearance. Since all
capital improvement plans established
under the Policy Statement were
required by the Policy Statement’s terms
to assure capital restoration by January
1, 1995, the Policy Statement serves no
further purpose.
Moreover, as part of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Investment in Leeway Securities;
Rescission of Statement of Policy
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Rescission of Statement of
Policy.
SUMMARY: As part of the FDIC’s
systematic review of its regulations and
written policies under section 303(a) of
the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(CDRI), the FDIC is rescinding its policy
statement concerning bank investments
under state leeway laws (Statement).
The Statement indicates that the FDIC
will not criticize investments of a civic
or community nature if they meet
reasonable limits set out in the
Statement. The FDIC is rescinding the
Statement because it is now outmoded.
The rescission does not reflect any
substantive change in the FDIC’s
supervisory attitude toward this type of
investment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Statement is
rescinded effective May 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert W. Walsh, Manager, Division of
Supervision (202) 898–6911; Gerald J.
Gervino, Senior Attorney, (202) 898–
3723, Legal Division, FDIC, 550 17th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC
is conducting a systematic review of its
regulations and written policies. Section
303(a) of the CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4803(a))
requires each federal banking agency to
streamline and modify its regulations
and written policies in order to improve
efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs,
and eliminate unwarranted constraints
on credit availability. Section 303(a)
also requires each federal banking
agency to remove inconsistencies and
outmoded and duplicative requirements
from its regulations and written
policies.
As part of this review, the FDIC has
determined that the Statement is
outmoded, and that the FDIC’s written
policies can be streamlined by its
elimination.
The Statement was published on
August 4, 1972, 37 FR 16228 and
amended on March 7, 1974, 39 FR 8956.
The Statement was designed to clarify
the FDIC’s position with regard to bank
investments under state leeway laws.
Leeway laws were adopted by many
states to give depository institutions a
way to make direct investments in civic
or community related projects that
would otherwise be prohibited under
the standard bank or thrift charter. It
was felt that financial institutions were
receiving inconsistent messages from
their regulators. While community
beneficial projects were encouraged by
state agencies, the credit quality of the
related investments was being
criticized. The FDIC did not want to
inhibit banks from making investments
that were primarily of a civic or
community nature. Therefore the
Statement indicated that FDIC
examiners would not criticize these
leeway investments provided they were
made within reasonable limits
established by state law and aggregated
no more than 10 percent of capital and
surplus, whichever was less.
Section 24 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831a,
prohibits equity investments by an
insured state bank if the investment is
not of a type and in an amount that is
permissible for a national bank. 12 CFR
part 362 implements this statutory
provision. Both the statute and the
regulation contain exceptions for
investments as a limited partner in a
partnership, the sole purpose of which
is the acquisition, rehabilitation or new
construction of qualified housing
projects. In addition, the National Bank
Act was amended since the last
amendment to the Statement in 1974 to
expressly provide authority for a
national bank to make investments that
are designed to primarily promote the
public welfare. Such investments can be
made up to a maximum of 10 percent
of unimpaired capital and surplus. (12
U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh). Finally,
community welfare investments are
encouraged under the FDIC’s
regulations implementing the
Community Reinvestment Act which
was enacted by Congress subsequent to
the adoption of the agency’s Statement.
Consistent with that Act and the FDIC’s
regulations, the FDIC will generally not
criticize commercially viable
community welfare investment. Thus,
the rescission of the Statement does not
signal any change in the manner in
which the FDIC evaluates investments
which are the subject of the current
Statement. In view of this current
statutory and regulatory direction, the
Statement is no longer necessary.
For the above reasons, the Statement is
hereby rescinded.
By Order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of
May, 1996.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96–12927 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
Capital Forbearance; Rescission of
Policy Statement
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Rescission of policy statement.
SUMMARY: As part of the FDIC’s
systematic review of its regulations and
written policies under section 303(a) of
the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
(CDRI), the FDIC is rescinding its
Guidelines for Implementing a Policy of
Capital Forbearance (Policy Statement).
The Policy Statement provided
guidelines for certain well-managed
viable banks to apply to the FDIC for
capital forbearance. The FDIC is
rescinding the Policy Statement because
it is now outmoded.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Policy Statement is
rescinded May 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert W. Walsh, Manager, (202) 898–
6911, Division of Supervision; Jamey
Basham, Counsel, (202) 898–7265, Legal
Division, FDIC, 550 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC
is conducting a systematic review of its
regulations and written policies. Section
303(a) of the CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4803(a))
requires each federal banking agency to
streamline and modify its regulations
and written policies in order to improve
efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs,
and eliminate unwarranted constraints
on credit availability. Section 303(a)
also requires each federal banking
agency to remove inconsistencies and
outmoded and duplicative requirements
from its regulations and written
policies.
As part of this review, the FDIC has
determined that the Policy Statement is
outmoded, and that the FDIC’s written
policies can be streamlined by its
elimination.
The FDIC adopted the Policy
Statement on July 7, 1987. 52 FR 26182
(July 13, 1987). The Policy Statement
provided guidelines under which
certain banks, which were well-
managed, solvent and viable but were
having difficulty raising needed capital
because they served an inadequately
diversified economic sector caught in a
severe downturn, could apply to the
FDIC for capital forbearance. Since all
capital improvement plans established
under the Policy Statement were
required by the Policy Statement’s terms
to assure capital restoration by January
1, 1995, the Policy Statement serves no
further purpose.
Moreover, as part of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation