Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 34020-34021 [E8-13455]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34020
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Notices
reasonable and, if it were not, to require MPA
to make a new, more favorable lease offer.
Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, at 5.
Rather more tersely, the District Court
concluded:
In fact, the Court finds no evidence to
undermine the conclusion that, in
negotiating with Premier, MPA was acting in
a reasonable manner to advance legitimate
goals, consistent with its legislated purpose.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Memorandum in Civil Action WMN–
06–1733 (October 31, 2006), at 24, 25–
26.
In the instant case, the Commission
concludes that negotiation of a
leasehold interest is inherently a
discretionary process. See, Ponca Tribe
of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma, 37
F.3d at 1436 ‘‘[t]he act of negotiating
* * * is the epitome of a discretionary
act. How the state negotiates; what it
perceives to be its interests that must be
preserved; where, if anywhere, that it
can compromise its interests—these all
involve acts of discretion.’’; Seminole
Tribe of Fla. v. State of Florida, 11 F.3d
1016 (11th Cir. 1994) (rejecting
application of Ex parte Young); Poarch
Band of Creek Indians v. State of
Alabama, 784 F.Supp. 1549 (S.D. Ala.
1992) (rejecting Ex parte Young claim
where relief would require ordering the
governor to exercise his discretion in
negotiating with the Plaintiff). But see,
Spokane Tribe of Indians v. State of
Washington, 790 F.Supp 1057 (E.D.
Wash. 1991); Elephant Butte Irrigation
Dist. v. Dept of Interior, 160 F.3d 602
(10th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the
Commission finds that Premier’s action
falls outside the scope of Ex parte
Young.
Adequacy of Relief under the Shipping
Act
In any event, we believe that in
enacting the Shipping Act of 1984, the
Congress created a remedial scheme
which provides adequately for relief to
be extended to complainants, such as
Premier, without resort to extraordinary
procedures made available under Ex
parte Young. See Schweiker v. Chilicky,
487 U.S. 412, 423 (1988) (‘‘When the
design of a Government program
suggests that Congress has provided
what it considers adequate remedial
mechanisms for constitutional
violations that may occur in the course
of its administration, we have not
created additional * * * remedies.’’)
Under authority conferred through the
Shipping Act, as amended, the
Commission has long administered
programs which directly regulate
government-owned and operated ports
as well as the practices and operations
of government-controlled carriers.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:04 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
In Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South
Carolina State Ports Authority, supra,
the Court was called upon to determine
whether state sovereign immunity
would preclude the Federal Maritime
Commission from adjudicating a private
party’s complaint that a state-run port
violated the Shipping Act of 1984.
Although commenting favorably that the
‘‘FMC administrative proceedings bear a
remarkably strong resemblance to civil
litigation in federal courts,’’ 535 U.S. at
757, the Court stated:
* * * we hold that state sovereign
immunity bars the FMC from adjudicating
complaints filed by a private party against a
nonconsenting State. Simply put, if the
Framers thought it an impermissible affront
to a State’s dignity to be required to answer
the complaints of private parties in federal
courts, we cannot imagine that they would
have found it acceptable to compel a State to
do exactly the same thing before the
administrative tribunal of an agency, such as
the FMC.
535 U.S. at 760. Responding to the
argument that federal regulation of
maritime commerce limits sovereign
immunity, the Court replied:
‘‘[e]ven when the Constitution vests in the
Congress complete lawmaking authority over
a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment
prevents congressional authorization of suits
by private parties against nonconsenting
States.’’ Ibid. Of course, the Federal
Government retains ample means of ensuring
that state-run ports comply with the
Shipping Act and other valid federal rules
governing ocean-borne commerce. The FMC,
for example, remains free to investigate
alleged violations of the Shipping Act, either
upon its own initiative or upon information
supplied by a private party, see, e.g. 46 CFR
502.282 (2001). Additionally, the
Commission ‘‘may bring suit in a district
court of the United States to enjoin conduct
in violation of [the Act].’’ 46 U.S.C. App
§ 1710(h)(1). Indeed, the United States has
advised us that the Court of Appeals’ ruling
below ‘‘should have little practical effect on
the FMC’s enforcement of the Shipping Act,’’
Brief for United States * * *
535 U.S. at 767–68, citing Seminole
Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra (footnote
omitted).
Inasmuch as Congress has prescribed
remedial measures to address violations
of statutorily created rights, the courts
should hesitate before casting aside
such measures in favor of the judiciallyprescribed protections of Ex parte
Young. Id. at 74, citing Schweiker v.
Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423 (‘‘where
Congress had created a remedial scheme
for the enforcement of a particular
federal right, we have, in suits against
federal officers, refused to supplement
that scheme with one created by the
judiciary.’’). Accordingly, as the private
parties herein remain free to complain
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to the Commission about unlawful state
activity and the agency has authority
adequate to the cause of investigating
and taking action thereon, the
fundamental justifications for the
creation of Ex parte Young are not
implicated. We see no sound reason to
supplement the existing statutory
remedies (Commission enforcement of
the Shipping Act directly against state
related entities) by extending Ex parte
Young to privately-filed Shipping Act
complaints. Schweiker v. Chilicky,
supra; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,
supra, 517 U.S. at 74. Interpreting Ex
parte Young as applying in every case
where injunctive relief is sought
constitutes the sort of ‘‘empty
formalism’’ that undermines sovereign
immunity. Coeur d’Alene, supra, 521
U.S. at 270.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the
Commission denies the exceptions of
Premier Automotive Services, Inc. from
the Order dismissing the verified
complaint; and affirms the
Administrative Law Judge’s initial
decision to the extent consistent with
this order.
Wherefore, it is ordered, that the
above captioned proceeding is
dismissed.
By the Commission.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–13489 Filed 6–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
indicated. The application also will be
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Notices
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Additional information on all bank
holding companies may be obtained
from the National Information Center
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than July 10, 2008.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
(Douglas A. Banks, Vice President) 1455
East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio
44101-2566:
1. Lewis County Capital Corporation,
Ladera Ranch, California; to become a
bank holding company by acquiring 100
percent of the voting shares of First
Community Bank, Lewis County,
Vanceburg, Kentucky.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
(W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200
North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 752012272:
1. Charter Bancshares, Inc., Corpus
Christi, Texas, and Charter IBHC, Inc.,
Wilmington, Delaware; to acquire 51
percent of the voting shares of Charter
Alliance Bank, Corpus Christi, Texas, a
de novo bank.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, June 11, 2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8–13455 Filed 6–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[30Day-08–0572]
Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork
Reduction Act Review
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of
information collection requests under
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in compliance with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:04 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance
Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov. Send written
comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC or by fax to (202) 395–6974. Written
comments should be received within 30
days of this notice.
Proposed Project
Health Message Testing System—
Revision—National Center for Health
Marketing (NCHM), Coordinating Center
for Health Information and Service
(CCHIS), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
The National Center for Health
Marketing (NCHM) was established as
part of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s Futures Initiative to
help ensure that health information,
interventions, and programs at CDC are
based on sound science, objectivity, and
continuous customer input.
Before CDC disseminates a health
message to the public, the message
always undergoes scientific review.
However, reflecting the current state of
scientific knowledge accurately
provides no guarantee that the public
will understand a health message or that
the message will move people to take
recommended action. Communication
theorists and researchers agree that for
health messages to be as clear and
influential as possible, target audience
members or representatives must be
involved in developing the messages
and provisional versions of the
messages must be tested with members
of the target audience.
However, increasingly there are
circumstances when CDC must move
swiftly to protect life, prevent disease,
or calm public anxiety. Health message
testing is even more important in these
instances, because of the critical nature
of the information need. Consider the
following situations:
CDC must communicate about a
hazard, outbreak, or other emergency
that presents an urgent threat to one or
more segments of the public. The
national crisis in which anthrax spores
contaminated mail, postal facilities, and
congressional buildings is a striking
example.
CDC receives a mandate from
Congress with a tight deadline for
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34021
communicating with the public about a
specific topic. For example, in 1998
Congress gave CDC 120 days to develop
and test messages for a public
information campaign about
Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium that can
cause stomach ulcers and increase
cancer risk if an infected individual is
not treated with antibiotics.
Emerging lifestyle or technological
trends create an ephemeral opportunity
to leverage the attention or behavior of
the public to increase the reach and/or
salience of prevention messages. For
example, media monitoring reveals a
partnership between Napster, a musicbased Web site, and the Pennsylvania
State University. This partnership
creates an ample opportunity for CDC to
join in the collaboration to reach
students with a salient health promotion
message. For instance, a ticker found on
the top of the Napster homepage screen
might contain an informational URL
followed by a message encouraging
students, especially those residing in
dormitories, to receive the meningitis
inoculation series at their campus
health center. This message would be
tailored prior to the beginning of each
academic year and would need to be
posted in a timely manner before the
arrival of the incoming freshman class.
Of equal importance, this
communication mechanism can be
effectively used in emergency ‘‘rapid
response’’ situations such as the campus
shooting incidents at Virginia Tech and
North Illinois University.
In the interest of timely health
message dissemination, many programs
forgo the important step of testing
messages on dimensions such as clarity,
salience, appeal, and persuasiveness
(i.e., the ability to influence behavioral
intention). Skipping this step avoids the
delay involved in the standard OMB
review process, but at a high potential
cost. Untested messages can waste
communication resources and
opportunities because the messages can
be perceived as unclear or irrelevant.
Untested messages can also have
unintended consequences, such as
jeopardizing the credibility of Federal
health officials.
There is no cost to the respondents
other than their time. The total
estimated annualized burden hours are
2,470.
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34020-34021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13455]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding
Companies
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
[[Page 34021]]
writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company,
the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking
company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12
U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 10, 2008.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Douglas A. Banks, Vice
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1. Lewis County Capital Corporation, Ladera Ranch, California; to
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting
shares of First Community Bank, Lewis County, Vanceburg, Kentucky.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1. Charter Bancshares, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas, and Charter
IBHC, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to acquire 51 percent of the voting
shares of Charter Alliance Bank, Corpus Christi, Texas, a de novo bank.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 11, 2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-13455 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
