ONLINE DELIVERY OF BANKING SERVICES

37029

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2001 / Notices

1 The FDIC issued electronic banking examination

procedures in January 1997 and implemented an

electronic banking subject matter expert program in

April 1997. The Division of Supervision created an

Electronic Banking Branch to focus attention on

electronic banking supervisory issues in September

2000. In addition, the FDIC has issued a variety of

written guidance concerning risks and appropriate

procedures for electronic banking. See e.g., FIL 81–

2000, Risk Management of Technology Outsourcing

(November 29, 2000); FIL 77–2000, Bank

Technology Bulletin, Internet Domain Names

(November 9, 2000); FIL 72–2000, Electronic

Signature in Global and National Commerce Act

(November 2, 2000); FIL 67–2000, Security

Monitoring of Computer Networks (October 3,

2000); FIL 63–2000, Online Banking (September 21,

2000); FIL 131–97, Security Risks Associated with

the Internet (December 18, 1997).

For further information, contact

Kenneth Hogan at (202) 208–0434.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–17682 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2495]

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification of Action in Rulemaking

Proceeding

July 10, 2001.

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification have been filed in the

Commission’s rulemaking proceeding

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR Section

1.429(e). The full text of these

documents are available for viewing and

copying in Room CY–A257, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800.

Oppositions to these petitions must be

filed by July 31, 2001. See Section

1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47

CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition

must be filed within 10 days after the

time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject:

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service (CC Docket No

ngton, DC or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800.

Oppositions to these petitions must be

filed by July 31, 2001. See Section

1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47

CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition

must be filed within 10 days after the

time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject:

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service (CC Docket No. 96–45)

Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan

for Regulation of Interstate Services

of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local

Exchange Carriers and

Interexchange Carriers (CC Docket

No. 00–256)

Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–17664 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Request for Comment on Study of

Banking Regulations Regarding the

Online Delivery of Banking Services

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Request for comment.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is reviewing its

regulations regarding the delivery of

financial services. The purpose of this

review is to identify changes or

additions to its regulations that would

facilitate the use of new technologies by

financial institutions. This Request for

Comment solicits comment on issues

arising from the electronic delivery of

financial products and services.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary,

Attention: Comments/OES, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.

Comments may be hand-delivered to the

guard station at the rear of the 550 17th

Street Building (located on F Street), on

business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

(facsimile number (202) 898–3838;

Internet address: comments@fdic.gov

<mailto:comments@fdic.gov>)

E. Feldman, Executive Secretary,

Attention: Comments/OES, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.

Comments may be hand-delivered to the

guard station at the rear of the 550 17th

Street Building (located on F Street), on

business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

(facsimile number (202) 898–3838;

Internet address: comments@fdic.gov

<mailto:comments@fdic.gov>).

Comments may be posted on the FDIC

internet site at http://www.fdic.gov/

regulations/laws/federal/propose.html

and may be inspected and photocopied

in the FDIC Public Information Center,

Room 100, 801 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20429, between 9 a.m.

and 4:30 p.m. on business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey M. Kopchik, Senior Policy

Analyst, Division of Supervision (202)

898–3872; or Robert A. Patrick, Counsel,

Legal Division (202) 898–3757.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

Section 729 of the Gramm-Leach-

Bliley Act, Public Law 106–102 (GLBA),

requires the FDIC, and other federal

bank regulatory agencies, to review

regulations regarding the delivery of

financial services and report to Congress

recommendations for adapting existing

requirements to online banking and

lending. The purpose of this Request for

Comment is to invite public comment

on issues regarding financial

institutions’ involvement in electronic

banking, before submission of the

Corporation’s report to Congress. Public

comment will help determine whether

any FDIC regulations should be revised

to remove regulatory impediments to

financial institutions’ use of new

technologies. The FDIC also would like

to know whether it should consider

promulgating regulations that would

facilitate financial institutions’ use of

new technologies. Based on the

comments received, the FDIC, in its

report to Congress, may identify

possible revisions or additions to FDIC

regulations or supervisory guidance

d

to remove regulatory impediments to

financial institutions’ use of new

technologies. The FDIC also would like

to know whether it should consider

promulgating regulations that would

facilitate financial institutions’ use of

new technologies. Based on the

comments received, the FDIC, in its

report to Congress, may identify

possible revisions or additions to FDIC

regulations or supervisory guidance.

Background

The application of new technologies

to traditional banking products and

services is dramatically altering the

ways in which financial institutions

conduct business. Advances in

telecommunications provide financial

institutions with faster and more

efficient communication and data

transmission. The Internet provides

financial institutions with a vehicle to

reach a global market area without an

investment in ‘‘brick and mortar’’

offices. Developments in technology are

causing financial institutions to

reevaluate existing delivery channels

and business practices, develop new

products and services, and serve

customers more efficiently.

Through the issuance of supervisory

guidelines such as the Standards for

Safeguarding Customer Information, 12

CFR part 364, Appendix B (66 FR 8616,

Feb. 1, 2001) (FIL 22–2001, March 14,

2001), the FDIC is working to identify

and educate banks about the risks

presented by electronic banking and to

ensure that its regulations appropriately

address these risks.1

General Comments

Commenters are invited to submit

comments and recommendations in

connection with any of the following

questions or any other issues relating to

the FDIC’s policies or procedures for

supervising financial institutions’ use of

electronic delivery channels

cate banks about the risks

presented by electronic banking and to

ensure that its regulations appropriately

address these risks.1

General Comments

Commenters are invited to submit

comments and recommendations in

connection with any of the following

questions or any other issues relating to

the FDIC’s policies or procedures for

supervising financial institutions’ use of

electronic delivery channels.

• Are there specific regulations the

FDIC should modify because they

impede the use of a new technology that

would allow financial institutions to

offer improved products or services in a

more efficient manner and at a lower

cost?

• Are there areas where financial

institutions would benefit from

additional clarification of rules or

guidance concerning the risks

associated with electronic banking

activities?

• Are there specific areas in which

regulatory changes are needed to

enhance consumer acceptance of,

confidence in, or access to, electronic

banking?

VerDate 11<MAY>2000

14:41 Jul 13, 2001

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

pfrm06

PsN: 16JYN1

37030

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2001 / Notices

Hyperlinking

The Internet has made it possible for

financial institutions and non-financial

commercial enterprises to partner in

ways that may not be apparent to

customers visiting a web site. For

example, a financial institution’s web

site may include hyperlinks that transfer

the customer to the web sites of one or

more non-financial institutions. These

other web sites may provide non-

financial information or sell non-

financial products or services. Sites

differ in the degree to which they

inform a person that products or

services accessible through the selection

of a hyperlink are, or are not, offered,

sponsored, or endorsed by the bank,

which may be confusing to site visitors

r to the web sites of one or

more non-financial institutions. These

other web sites may provide non-

financial information or sell non-

financial products or services. Sites

differ in the degree to which they

inform a person that products or

services accessible through the selection

of a hyperlink are, or are not, offered,

sponsored, or endorsed by the bank,

which may be confusing to site visitors.

• Should the FDIC promulgate a

regulation or publish guidance setting

forth standards for state nonmember

banks concerning the use of hyperlinks?

• Are there technology solutions to

address these issues?

Physical Location

Internet banking raises issues with

respect to how the FDIC should

interpret existing laws and regulations

that reference geographic terms or rely

on concepts of physical presence. For

example, the definition of ‘‘branch’’

contained in § 303.41(a) of the FDIC’s

regulations (12 CFR 303.41(a)) assumes

the existence of a building permanently

or temporarily located at a specific

physical location. It does not address

banking transactions conducted over the

Internet where the consumer and a bank

representative do not meet face to face.

See 12 CFR part 303, subpart C.

• Does reliance on these terms and

concepts create an impediment to

financial institutions conducting

operations on the Internet? If so, how

should the FDIC clarify its regulations?

• Are there other instances in which

online banking or lending would benefit

from a clarification of references to

physical location in FDIC regulations? If

so, how should the FDIC address those

instances?

Appraisals

Certain loans must be supported by

written real estate appraisals performed

in accordance with uniform standards,

supported by the presentation and

analysis of relevant market information.

See 12 CFR part 323.

• Would online lending benefit from

any clarification of the FDIC’s

application of this regulation in terms of

what constitutes a written appraisal, or

the presentation of relevant market

information

oans must be supported by

written real estate appraisals performed

in accordance with uniform standards,

supported by the presentation and

analysis of relevant market information.

See 12 CFR part 323.

• Would online lending benefit from

any clarification of the FDIC’s

application of this regulation in terms of

what constitutes a written appraisal, or

the presentation of relevant market

information. If so, what clarifications

should the FDIC make to facilitate the

use of appraisals in electronic form?

• What types of controls regarding

authentication of an electronic

appraisal, certification of the appraiser,

or other standards would be appropriate

to assure authenticity and integrity in

connection with filing electronic

appraisals?

Electronic Signatures

The Electronic Signatures in Global

and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C.

7001, et seq. (E-Sign Act), provides that

contracts and signatures with respect to

any transaction affecting interstate

commerce may not be denied validity

solely because they are in electronic

form. The E-Sign Act also provides that

records of such contracts may be

maintained in electronic form, subject to

certain requirements, i.e., they must

accurately reflect the information in the

contract, be accessible to all persons

who are entitled to access them, and be

capable of being accurately reproduced

for later reference.

• Should the FDIC promulgate

regulations or publish guidance setting

forth standards for the use of electronic

signatures and records? See 15 U.S.C.

7004.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

July, 2001.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–17666 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1370–DR]

Minnesota; Amendment No. 6 to Notice

of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice

d of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

July, 2001.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–17666 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1370–DR]

Minnesota; Amendment No. 6 to Notice

of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster declaration for the

State of Minnesota, (FEMA–1370–DR),

dated May 16, 2001, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2001

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Readiness, Response and

Recovery Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–5920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster declaration for the

State of Minnesota is hereby amended to

include the following areas among those

areas determined to have been adversely

affected by the catastrophe declared a

major disaster by the President in his

declaration of May 16, 2001:

Dodge, Faribault, and Isanti Counties for

Public Assistance.

Beltrami County for Public Assistance

(already designated for Individual

Assistance).

McLeod and Pope Counties for Individual

Assistance (already designated for Public

Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used

for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537,

Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora

Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis

Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services

Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment

Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression

Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family

Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public

Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing

Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Assistant Director, Readiness, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc

539, Crisis

Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services

Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment

Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression

Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family

Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public

Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing

Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Assistant Director, Readiness, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 01–17642 Filed 7–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1384–DR]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the

Presidential declaration of a major

disaster for the State of Oklahoma

(FEMA–1384–DR), dated June 29, 2001,

and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–5920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that, in a letter dated June

29, 2001, the President declared a major

disaster under the authority of the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act, 42 USC

5121, as follows:

I have determined that the damage in

certain areas of the State of Oklahoma,

resulting from severe storms, flooding, and

tornadoes on May 27–30, 2001, is of

sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant

a major disaster declaration under the Robert

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act, 42 USC 5121 (Stafford Act).

I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster

exists in the State of Oklahoma.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000

14:41 Jul 13, 2001

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

pfrm06

PsN: 16JYN1