ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

35589

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

general aviation. The petitioners state

the aerial threat may also entail

explosives delivered via mortars and

other means (e.g., rocket propelled

grenades) as deemed appropriate by the

NRC. The petitioners assert that if the

aerial hazards evaluation determines

that all targets within a target set are

likely to be disabled, at least three

options are available to the plant’s

owner to remedy the vulnerability:

(1) Other equipment outside of and not

affected by the impact zone could be added

to the target set. Using the sample target sets,

a fifth makeup water supply system could be

added if it were outside the impact zone and

could adequately cool the reactor core.

(2) Protection in place for at least one of

the targets within the existing target set could

be provided. Using Target Set 9 from the

sample target sets, if an aircraft impact at the

location of the low pressure supply system

and the alternate low pressure supply system

potentially caused collateral damage to the

discharge pathway for the emergency high

pressure supply system, it might be possible

to install a shield wall or screen to protect

the exposed pathway.

(3) Affected portions of a system could be

relocated to a safe place outside the impact

zone. Using Target Set 5 from the sample

target sets, if the only part of the Emergency

High Pressure Supply System within the

impact zone was the power cable for the

pump, that power cable could be rerouted.

The petitioners believe that while an

aerial hazards analysis established

adequate protection, for those that may

not be at nuclear power plants, it would

also provide the means to ensure that

future changes to plant structures and

procedures do not compromise that

protection

ressure Supply System within the

impact zone was the power cable for the

pump, that power cable could be rerouted.

The petitioners believe that while an

aerial hazards analysis established

adequate protection, for those that may

not be at nuclear power plants, it would

also provide the means to ensure that

future changes to plant structures and

procedures do not compromise that

protection.

Conclusion

The petitioners believe that the

proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.59 and

10 CFR 50.54(p) integrate the safety and

security evaluations performed for

proposed changes to plant safety

equipment and procedures, thereby

providing better protection against

radiological sabotage. Also, the

petitioners believe the proposed

changes to part 50 provide a formal,

structured approach for managing the

risk from aerial hazards comparable to

the regulatory approach already adopted

for managing the risk from fire hazards.

The petitioners state that if September

11, 2001, featured one of the hijacked

aircraft hitting a U.S. nuclear power

plant, the formal, structured approach

being sought by this petition would

have been undertaken as a necessary

step to prevent another event. The

petitioners state that if these changes are

good measures to prevent recurrence,

they represent even better measures to

prevent occurrence in the first place.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of June, 2003.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Secretary for the Commission.

[FR Doc. 03–15123 Filed 6–13–03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Chap. I

[Docket No. 03–10]

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Chap. II

[Docket No. R–1151]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Chap. III

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Chap. V

[No

n.

[FR Doc. 03–15123 Filed 6–13–03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Chap. I

[Docket No. 03–10]

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Chap. II

[Docket No. R–1151]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Chap. III

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Chap. V

[No. 2003–20]

Regulatory Publication and Review

Under the Economic Growth and

Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1996

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System (Board); Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and

Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, and

OTS (‘‘we’’ or ‘‘the Agencies’’) are

beginning a review of our regulations to

reduce burden imposed on insured

depository institutions, as required by

section 2222 of the Economic Growth

and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1996. We have categorized our

regulations for the purpose of the review

and propose to publish 12 categories of

regulations for review between now and

2006. The categories, and the

regulations that the Agencies consider

to be part of those categories, are

detailed below. This review presents a

significant opportunity to consider the

possibilities for burden reduction

among groups of similar regulations. We

welcome comment on the categories, the

order of review, and all other aspects of

the project in order to maximize its

effectiveness.

Today, we are publishing our first in

a series of public releases, comprising

three of the categories—‘‘Applications

and Reporting,’’ ‘‘Powers and

Activities,’’ and ‘‘International

Operations’’—for public comment so as

to identify outdated, unnecessary, or

unduly burdensome regulatory

requirements imposed on insured

depository institutions

project in order to maximize its

effectiveness.

Today, we are publishing our first in

a series of public releases, comprising

three of the categories—‘‘Applications

and Reporting,’’ ‘‘Powers and

Activities,’’ and ‘‘International

Operations’’—for public comment so as

to identify outdated, unnecessary, or

unduly burdensome regulatory

requirements imposed on insured

depository institutions. Since we will

publish a series of releases containing

requests for comment on the remaining

categories, it is not recommended that

burden reduction comments be

submitted now for any regulations in

other categories.

DATES: Written comments must be

received no later than September 15,

2003.

ADDRESSES: Due to delays in paper mail

delivery in the Washington area,

commenters may prefer to submit their

comments by alternate means.

Comments should be directed to:

OCC: Public Information Room, Office

of the Comptroller of the Currency,

250 E Street, SW., Mailstop 1–5,

Washington, DC 20219, Attention:

Docket No. 03–10. Comments will be

available for public inspection and

photocopying at the same location.

You can make an appointment to

inspect the comments by calling (202)

874–5043. Facsimiles: Send facsimile

transmissions to FAX Number (202)

874–4448. E-mail: Send e-mails to

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.

Board: Comments should refer to Docket

No. R–1151 and should be mailed to

Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary,

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, 20th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20551, or mailed

electronically to

regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.

Members of the public may inspect

comments in Room MP–500 of the

Martin Building between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m. on weekdays in accordance with

the Board’s Rules Regarding

Availability of Information, 12 CFR

part 261.

FDIC: Mail: Written comments should

be addressed to Robert E

and

Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20551, or mailed

electronically to

regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.

Members of the public may inspect

comments in Room MP–500 of the

Martin Building between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m. on weekdays in accordance with

the Board’s Rules Regarding

Availability of Information, 12 CFR

part 261.

FDIC: Mail: Written comments should

be addressed to Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary, Attention:

Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20429. Delivery:

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. You also may

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

35590

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

1 The National Credit Union Administration

(NCUA) has participated in the EGRPRA planning

process and will separately issue a request for

comment. Since the Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council (FFIEC) has not issued

regulations that impose burden on insured

institutions, we have not separately captioned the

FFIEC in this notice.

2 Institutions are also subject to regulations issued

by other non-banking agencies, such as rules issued

by the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (under Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act of 1974) and by the Department of

the Treasury (under the Bank Secrecy Act including

rules required by the USA PATRIOT Act). The rules

of these other agencies are beyond the scope of the

EGRPRA review and the Agencies’ jurisdictions. To

the extent the Agencies receive comments raising

significant issues regarding these related rules,

however, we intend to identify the issues in the

Report to Congress and will also notify the related

agencies of the substance of the relevant comments.

electronically mail comments to

comments@fdic.gov

ther agencies are beyond the scope of the

EGRPRA review and the Agencies’ jurisdictions. To

the extent the Agencies receive comments raising

significant issues regarding these related rules,

however, we intend to identify the issues in the

Report to Congress and will also notify the related

agencies of the substance of the relevant comments.

electronically mail comments to

comments@fdic.gov. Public

Inspection: Comments 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.

OTS: Mail: Send comments to

Regulation Comments, Chief

Counsel’s Office, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20552, Attention:

No.2003–20. Delivery: Hand deliver

comments to the Guard’s Desk, East

Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW.,

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business

days, Attention: Regulation

Comments, Chief Counsel’s Office,

Attention: No. 2003–20. Facsimiles:

Send facsimile transmissions to FAX

Number (202) 906—6518, Attention:

No. 2003–20. E-Mail: Send e-mails to

regs.comments@ots.treas.gov,

Attention: No. 2003–20 and include

your name and telephone number.

Availability of Comments: OTS will

post comments and the related index

on the OTS Internet site at

www.ots.treas.gov. In addition, you

may inspect comments at the Public

Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by

appointment. To make an

appointment for access, call (202)

906–5922, send an e-mail to

public.info@ots.treas.gov, or send a

facsimile transmission to (202) 906–

7755. (Please identify the material you

would like to inspect to assist us in

serving you.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC: Mark Tenhundfeld, Assistant

Director, Legislative and Regulatory

Activities Division, (202) 874–5090;

Lee Walzer, Counsel, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities Division, (202)

874–5090, Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency, 250 E St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20219.

Board: Patricia A

e material you

would like to inspect to assist us in

serving you.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC: Mark Tenhundfeld, Assistant

Director, Legislative and Regulatory

Activities Division, (202) 874–5090;

Lee Walzer, Counsel, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities Division, (202)

874–5090, Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency, 250 E St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20219.

Board: Patricia A. Robinson, Senior

Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 452–

3005; Michael J. O’Rourke, Counsel,

Legal Division, (202) 452–3288; David

G. Adkins, Supervisory Financial

Analyst, Division of Banking

Supervision and Regulation, (202)

452–5259; Federal Reserve Board,

20th St. and Constitution Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20551.

FDIC: Claude A. Rollin, Special

Assistant to the Vice Chairman, (202)

898–8741; Steven D. Fritts, Associate

Director, Division of Supervision and

Consumer Protection, (202) 898–3723;

Ruth R. Amberg, Senior Counsel,

Legal Division, (202) 898–3736;

Thomas Nixon, Senior Attorney, Legal

Division, (202) 898–8766; Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20429.

OTS: Robyn Dennis, Manager, Thrift

Policy, Supervision Policy (202) 906–

5751; Karen Osterloh, Special

Counsel, Regulations and Legislation

Division, Chief Counsel’s Office, (202)

906–6639; Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Congress enacted section 2222 of the

Economic Growth and Regulatory

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. 104–208, Sept. 30, 1996) (EGRPRA),

as part of an effort to minimize

unnecessary government regulation

consistent with safety and soundness,

consumer protection, and other public

policy goals. Under section 2222, 12

U.S.C. 3311, the Agencies,1 jointly or

individually, must categorize

regulations by type, such as ‘‘consumer

regulations’’ or ‘‘safety and soundness’’

regulations. Once we have established

the categories, we must provide notice

and ask for public comment on them

ent regulation

consistent with safety and soundness,

consumer protection, and other public

policy goals. Under section 2222, 12

U.S.C. 3311, the Agencies,1 jointly or

individually, must categorize

regulations by type, such as ‘‘consumer

regulations’’ or ‘‘safety and soundness’’

regulations. Once we have established

the categories, we must provide notice

and ask for public comment on them. In

particular, section 2222 requires that we

ask the public to identify areas of the

regulations that are outdated,

unnecessary, or unduly burdensome.

The Agencies must issue these

publications for comment at regular

intervals such that all of the Agencies’

categories of regulations are published

for such comment within a 10 year

cycle. The first publication cycle will

end in September 2006. The EGRPRA

review supplements and complements

the reviews of regulations that the

Agencies conduct under other laws and

their internal policies.

Section 2222 requires a two-part

regulatory response. First, the Agencies

must publish in the Federal Register a

summary of the comments received,

identifying the significant issues raised

and discussing those issues. Second, the

Agencies must ‘‘eliminate unnecessary

regulations to the extent that such

action is appropriate.’’ The Agencies

may prepare the regulatory response

individually or jointly.

Section 2222 further requires the

FFIEC to submit a report to the Congress

within 30 days after the Agencies

publish the comment summary and

discussion in the Federal Register. This

report must summarize any significant

issues raised by the public comments

and the relative merits of those issues.

The report also must analyze whether

the appropriate Federal banking agency

involved is able to address the

regulatory burdens associated with the

issues by regulation, or whether the

burdens must be addressed by

legislation.

II

nd

discussion in the Federal Register. This

report must summarize any significant

issues raised by the public comments

and the relative merits of those issues.

The report also must analyze whether

the appropriate Federal banking agency

involved is able to address the

regulatory burdens associated with the

issues by regulation, or whether the

burdens must be addressed by

legislation.

II. The EGRPRA Review’s Special

Focus

The regulatory review required by

section 2222 provides a significant

opportunity for the public and the

Agencies to step back and look at groups

of related regulations and identify

possibilities for streamlining. The

EGRPRA review’s overall focus on the

‘forest’ of regulations will, we hope,

offer a new perspective in identifying

opportunities to reduce regulatory

burden. Of course, reducing regulatory

burden must be consistent with

ensuring the continued safety and

soundness of insured depository

institutions and appropriate consumer

protections.

EGRPRA also recognizes that burden

reduction must be consistent with our

statutory mandates, many of which

currently require certain regulations.

One of the significant aspects of the

EGRPRA review program is the

recognition that effective burden

reduction in certain areas may require

legislative change. We will be soliciting

comment on, and reviewing the

comments and regulations carefully for,

the relationship among burden

reduction, regulatory requirements, and

statutory mandates. This will be a key

aspect of the FFIEC report to the

Congress.2

The combination of considering the

relationship of regulatory and statutory

change on regulatory burden with the

section 2222 requirement for grouping

regulations by type provides the

possibility for particularly effective

burden reduction

relationship among burden

reduction, regulatory requirements, and

statutory mandates. This will be a key

aspect of the FFIEC report to the

Congress.2

The combination of considering the

relationship of regulatory and statutory

change on regulatory burden with the

section 2222 requirement for grouping

regulations by type provides the

possibility for particularly effective

burden reduction. It may be possible to

identify statutes and regulations that

share similar goals or complementary

methods such that the regulatory

requirements could be combined and

overlapping requirements could be

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

35591

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

3 Board Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded

Rulemaking Procedures, 44 FR 3957, Jan. 19, 1979.

4 FDIC Law, Regulations and Related Acts, pp.

5057–5058.

5 OCC Bulletin 97–8 (January 7, 1997). Moreover,

the OCC recognizes that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’

approach to regulation can be ineffective and

burdensome, and tailors its regulations accordingly,

taking into account factors such as the size of an

institution. Id.

6 The OCC and OTS also review regulations

pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.

104–4).

7 Consistent with section 2222’s focus on

reducing burden on insured institutions, the

Agencies’ EGRPRA review will not involve their

internal organizational or operational regulations to

the extent that those regulations impose no, or

minimal, burden on insured institutions.

eliminated. For example, it may be

possible to combine certain types of

applications to eliminate duplication.

The EGRPRA review will complement

the review to reduce burden and to

increase uniformity of regulations

among the Agencies, pursuant to section

303 of the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–

325, Sept. 23, 1994, 12 U.S.C

institutions.

eliminated. For example, it may be

possible to combine certain types of

applications to eliminate duplication.

The EGRPRA review will complement

the review to reduce burden and to

increase uniformity of regulations

among the Agencies, pursuant to section

303 of the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–

325, Sept. 23, 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4803)

(CDRI). The Agencies’ section 2222

review will continue to try to eliminate

inconsistencies among their regulations,

although complete uniformity is not

possible in light of differences in the

types of regulated entities and the

statutes that apply to them.

The EGRPRA review can also

significantly contribute to the Agencies’

ongoing efforts to reduce regulatory

burden. For example, since 1979, a

formally adopted Federal Reserve policy

has required the Board to review each

of its regulations at least once every five

years with a view toward eliminating,

simplifying, or otherwise easing the

burden of each regulation.3 The FDIC

has a similar requirement, described in

its policy ‘‘Development and Review of

FDIC Regulations and Policies.’’ 4 See

also: FDIC Chairman Powell’s initiative

‘‘Reducing Regulatory Burden’’ at

http://www.fdic.gov. Under OCC policy

in effect since the OCC undertook a

comprehensive review of all of its

regulations to reduce regulatory burden

in the mid-1990s, the agency’s

regulation-writing process has sought to

eliminate ‘‘regulatory requirements that

are not necessary to ensure the safety

and soundness of national banks, to

support consumers’ access to financial

services, or to accomplish other aspects

of the OCC’s regulatory mission.’’ 5 See

also, ‘‘Remarks by John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency, Before the

Independent Community Bankers of

America, Orlando, Florida, March 4,

2003’’ at http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/

release/2003–17a.pdf

sary to ensure the safety

and soundness of national banks, to

support consumers’ access to financial

services, or to accomplish other aspects

of the OCC’s regulatory mission.’’ 5 See

also, ‘‘Remarks by John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency, Before the

Independent Community Bankers of

America, Orlando, Florida, March 4,

2003’’ at http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/

release/2003–17a.pdf. Since the early

1990s OTS has worked to reduce

regulatory burden through various

regulatory review projects as well as

Thrift Financial Report changes and

revisions to Applications forms. OTS

strives to produce risk-focused,

efficient, and proactive regulations. OTS

also, whenever possible, tailors its

regulations to risks posed by particular

institutions and writes its regulations

and guidance in plain language.

Further, the Agencies address the

issue of regulatory burden every time

they propose and adopt a rule. Under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and

internal agency policies, the Agencies

examine each rulemaking to minimize

the burdens it might impose on the

industry and consider various

alternatives.6

The Agencies also will use both the

EGRPRA review and the individual

reviews to identify and reduce burdens

on small institutions. More than half of

insured depository institutions are

small—having $150 million in assets or

less—as defined by the Small Business

Administration. We are particularly

concerned about burden on small

institutions. When a new regulation is

created or an old regulation is changed,

small institutions must devote a large

percentage of their staffs’ time to review

the regulation to determine if and how

it will affect them. Compliance with a

regulation also can take large amounts

of time that cannot be devoted to

serving customers or business planning

ularly

concerned about burden on small

institutions. When a new regulation is

created or an old regulation is changed,

small institutions must devote a large

percentage of their staffs’ time to review

the regulation to determine if and how

it will affect them. Compliance with a

regulation also can take large amounts

of time that cannot be devoted to

serving customers or business planning.

In a large institution, ensuring

regulatory compliance can take many

more hours; however, those hours make

up a much smaller percentage of the

institution’s resources. In situations

where a regulation is aimed at an

activity engaged in primarily by large

institutions, the compliance burden on

small institutions can outweigh its

benefit.

Section 610 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act imposes a continuing

requirement on agencies to review

regulations that may have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, within 10

years after a final rulemaking is

published. Although not all of the

Agencies’ rules must be reviewed

pursuant to section 610, the Agencies

are undertaking to review rules to the

extent possible under the section 610

review criteria because of the

importance of burden reduction to the

many small institutions we regulate.

III. The Agencies’ Proposed Plan

The Agencies must categorize their

regulations by type. Section 2222 gives

us authority to determine categories,

and suggests two possible categories:

‘‘consumer regulations’’ and ‘‘safety and

soundness.’’ The Agencies have

regulations on more than 100 subjects

covering a wide variety of topics from

capital maintenance to the privacy of

consumer financial information. Some

of these regulations have been issued

jointly and are as uniform as possible.

Others were issued separately by the

Agencies but implement common

statutes or policies. These rules are

listed as interagency rules to facilitate

comparisons

regulations on more than 100 subjects

covering a wide variety of topics from

capital maintenance to the privacy of

consumer financial information. Some

of these regulations have been issued

jointly and are as uniform as possible.

Others were issued separately by the

Agencies but implement common

statutes or policies. These rules are

listed as interagency rules to facilitate

comparisons. Some regulations are

issued by a single agency but are

applicable to all types of insured

institutions, such as the Board’s Equal

Credit Opportunity regulation or the

FDIC’s Deposit Insurance regulation.

Other regulations are issued by a single

agency and have more limited

applicability. These rules are listed

under the name of the issuing agency.

The Agencies propose to seek public

comment on 12 categories of their

regulations that impose burden on

insured institutions between now and

2006.7 The categories, in alphabetical

order, are: Applications and Reporting;

Banking Operations; Capital;

Community Reinvestment Act;

Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers

and Employees; International

Operations; Money Laundering; Powers

and Activities; Rules of Procedure;

Safety and Soundness; and Securities.

We believe that these categories are

logical groupings that are not so broad

that the number of regulations presented

in any one category would overwhelm

potential commenters. The categories

also reflect recognized areas of industry

interest and specialization, or are

particularly critical to the health of the

banking system. We recognize that our

regulations could be categorized in

other ways and welcome

recommendations about the categories

and the regulations placed within them.

Although joint publication is not

required by section 2222, the Agencies

believe that joint publication of the

regulation categories for public

comment will be the most effective

method for achieving EGRPRA’s burden

reduction goals

We recognize that our

regulations could be categorized in

other ways and welcome

recommendations about the categories

and the regulations placed within them.

Although joint publication is not

required by section 2222, the Agencies

believe that joint publication of the

regulation categories for public

comment will be the most effective

method for achieving EGRPRA’s burden

reduction goals. Joint publication and

review also will help maintain the

uniformity of regulations among the

Agencies where possible. We are

publishing three categories of rules for

burden reduction comment today and

plan to publish the remaining nine

categories in roughly semiannual

intervals, with 90-day comment periods

for categories under review, throughout

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

35592

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

8 The charts have been provided as a convenience

for the reader and should not be treated as a

comprehensive listing of all rules applicable to a

particular institution.

9 There are a number of regulations that apply to

branch or agency operations because of the type of

activity in which the office engages rather than

because it is a branch or agency. These regulations

govern such areas as consumer protection, customer

privacy, and securities regulation. Foreign banks

may wish to comment on these regulations at such

time as they are published for comment.

the review period. We welcome

recommendations on grouping the

remaining categories and the order in

which to publish them.

After the conclusion of the comment

period for each EGRPRA review notice

published in the Federal Register, the

Agencies will review the comments we

have received and decide whether

further action is appropriate with

respect to the categories of regulations

included in that notice

od. We welcome

recommendations on grouping the

remaining categories and the order in

which to publish them.

After the conclusion of the comment

period for each EGRPRA review notice

published in the Federal Register, the

Agencies will review the comments we

have received and decide whether

further action is appropriate with

respect to the categories of regulations

included in that notice. That decision

will be made by the Agencies jointly in

the case of rules that we have issued

jointly. Any rulemaking to amend or

revise those rules would similarly be

undertaken jointly and the public will

be provided with an opportunity to

comment on any proposed amendment.

This interagency rulemaking process

will not, however, include rules issued

by only one agency. Comments that

address specific provisions of such a

regulation will be carefully reviewed

and incorporated in the detailed review

of the relevant regulation conducted by

the agency issuing the rule. Each agency

will separately determine whether

amendments to its own rules are

appropriate in light of comments

submitted during the EGRPRA review

and, if so, will separately initiate

rulemakings to modify its rules.

Consistent with the spirit of CDRI,

however, where individual agency rules

implement common statutory or

supervisory policies, the Agencies will

work jointly to achieve uniformity.

The Agencies have prepared three

charts to assist public understanding of

the organization of our section 2222

review. Chart A presents the three

categories of regulations about which

we are requesting burden reduction

recommendations starting today. Chart

B identifies regulations affecting United

States (U.S.) branches, agencies, and

representative offices of foreign banks,

while Chart C presents the remaining

nine categories on which we will seek

comment. The categories in each of the

charts are shown in numbered and

shaded horizontal bands

f regulations about which

we are requesting burden reduction

recommendations starting today. Chart

B identifies regulations affecting United

States (U.S.) branches, agencies, and

representative offices of foreign banks,

while Chart C presents the remaining

nine categories on which we will seek

comment. The categories in each of the

charts are shown in numbered and

shaded horizontal bands. In each, the

left column divides the categories into

more specific subject matter areas. The

remaining columns are headed by the

different types of financial institutions

(e.g., national banks, etc. * * *).

Generally, by reading down a column,

a particular type of institution may

identify the citation of the rule that

applies to it. When one agency’s

regulation applies to institutions for

which it is not the primary regulator,

the citation for the subject is repeated

across the columns.8 Interagency

regulations are listed first, followed by

regulations issued by the OCC, Board,

FDIC, and OTS.

Foreign banks. Foreign banks operate

in the U.S. both directly, through

branches and agencies, and indirectly,

through bank and nonbank subsidiaries.

The U.S. operations of foreign banks as

a whole do not fit neatly into the

categories of Charts A and C.

Consequently, Chart B supplements the

International Operations category of

Chart A by identifying the major

regulations that apply only to U.S.

branches, agencies, or representative

offices of foreign banks. We have also

footnoted the ‘‘Holding Company’’

column of Chart A to include foreign

banks. (If a foreign bank operates a

branch, agency or subsidiary

commercial lending company in the

U.S., it is subject to the Bank Holding

Company Act as if it were a bank

holding company.) 9

IV

the major

regulations that apply only to U.S.

branches, agencies, or representative

offices of foreign banks. We have also

footnoted the ‘‘Holding Company’’

column of Chart A to include foreign

banks. (If a foreign bank operates a

branch, agency or subsidiary

commercial lending company in the

U.S., it is subject to the Bank Holding

Company Act as if it were a bank

holding company.) 9

IV. Request for Burden Reduction

Recommendations About the First

Three Categories of Regulations:

‘‘Applications and Reporting,’’ ‘‘Powers

and Activities,’’ and ‘‘International

Operations’’

The Agencies are asking the public to

identify and comment upon areas of

regulations within three categories—

‘‘Applications and Reporting,’’ ‘‘Powers

and Activities,’’ and ‘‘International

Operations’’—that impose outdated,

unnecessary, or unduly burdensome

regulatory requirements on insured

depository institutions. It is not

necessary for the public to provide

burden reduction recommendations

about categories of rules other than

these three categories at this time since

we will publish the remaining

categories before the end of the first

review cycle in 2006. Comments that

cite particular provisions or language,

and provide reasons why such

provisions should be changed, would be

most helpful to the Agencies’ review

efforts. Suggested alternative provisions

or language, where appropriate, would

also be helpful. If the implementation of

a comment would require modifying a

statute that underlies the regulation, the

comment should, if possible, identify

the needed statutory change.

Specific issues for commenters to

consider. While all comments related to

any aspect of section 2222 are welcome,

the Agencies specifically invite

comment on the following issues:

• Need for statutory change

be helpful. If the implementation of

a comment would require modifying a

statute that underlies the regulation, the

comment should, if possible, identify

the needed statutory change.

Specific issues for commenters to

consider. While all comments related to

any aspect of section 2222 are welcome,

the Agencies specifically invite

comment on the following issues:

• Need for statutory change. Do the

statutes impose unnecessary

requirements? Are any of the statutory

requirements underlying these

categories imposing redundant,

conflicting or otherwise unduly

burdensome regulatory requirements?

• Need and purpose of the

regulations. Do the regulations in these

categories fulfill current needs? Have

industry or other circumstances

changed since a regulation was written

such that the regulation is no longer

necessary? Have there been shifts within

the industry or consumer actions that

suggest a re-focus of the underlying

regulations? Do any of the regulations in

these categories impose burdens not

required by their authorizing statutes?

• Overarching approaches / flexibility

of the regulatory standards. Generally,

is there a different approach to

regulating that the Agencies could use

that would achieve statutory goals while

imposing less burden? Do any of the

regulations in these categories or the

statutes underlying them impose

unnecessarily inflexible requirements?

• Effect of the regulations on

competition. Do any of the regulations

in these categories or the statutes

underlying them create competitive

disadvantages for one part of the

financial services industry compared to

another?

• Reporting, recordkeeping and

disclosure requirements

regulations in these categories or the

statutes underlying them impose

unnecessarily inflexible requirements?

• Effect of the regulations on

competition. Do any of the regulations

in these categories or the statutes

underlying them create competitive

disadvantages for one part of the

financial services industry compared to

another?

• Reporting, recordkeeping and

disclosure requirements. Do any of the

regulations in these categories or the

statutes underlying them impose

particularly burdensome reporting,

recordkeeping or disclosure

requirements? Are any of these

requirements similar enough in purpose

and use so that they could be

consolidated? Which, if any, of these

requirements could be fulfilled

electronically to reduce their burden?

• Consistency and redundancy. Do

any of the regulations in these categories

impose inconsistent or redundant

regulatory requirements that are not

warranted by the circumstances?

• Clarity. Are the regulations in these

categories and the underlying statutes

drafted in clear and easily understood

language? Are there specific regulations

or underlying statutes that need

clarification?

• Burden on small insured

institutions. The Agencies have a

particular interest in minimizing burden

on small insured institutions (those

with assets of $150 million or less). The

Agencies solicit comment on whether

any regulations within these categories

should be continued without change, or

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

35593

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

amended or rescinded in order to

minimize any significant economic

impact the regulations may have on a

substantial number of small insured

institutions.

BILLING CODE 4810–33, 6210–01, 6714–01, 6720–01–P

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

ederal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

amended or rescinded in order to

minimize any significant economic

impact the regulations may have on a

substantial number of small insured

institutions.

BILLING CODE 4810–33, 6210–01, 6714–01, 6720–01–P

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

35594

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.023</GPH>

35595

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.024</GPH>

35596

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.025</GPH>

35597

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.026</GPH>

35598

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.027</GPH>

35599

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.028</GPH>

35600

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.029</GPH>

115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.028</GPH>

35600

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.029</GPH>

35601

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.030</GPH>

35602

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.031</GPH>

35603

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.032</GPH>

35604

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.033</GPH>

35605

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.034</GPH>

35606

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.035</GPH>

35607

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.036</GPH>

115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.035</GPH>

35607

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.036</GPH>

35608

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.037</GPH>

35609

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.038</GPH>

35610

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Jan<31>2003

16:19 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.039</GPH>

35611

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4810–33, 6210–01, 6714–01, 6720–01–C

VerDate Jan<31>2003

18:48 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1

EP16JN03.040</GPH>

35612

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 115 / Monday, June 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Dated: June 3, 2003.

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, June 9, 2003.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Dated in Washington, DC, this 10 day of

June, 2003.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

Dated: May 29, 2003.

James E. Gilleran,

Director, Office of Thrift Supervision.

[FR Doc

Currency.

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, June 9, 2003.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Dated in Washington, DC, this 10 day of

June, 2003.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

Dated: May 29, 2003.

James E. Gilleran,

Director, Office of Thrift Supervision.

[FR Doc. 03–15088 Filed 6–13–03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33, 6210–01, 6714–01, 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM249; Special Conditions No.

25–03–05–SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer Model

ERJ–170 Series Airplanes; Electronic

Flight Controls (Command Signal

Integrity)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special

conditions.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes special

conditions for the Embraer Model ERJ–

170 series airplanes. These airplanes

will have novel or unusual design

features when compared to the state of

technology envisioned in the

airworthiness standards for transport

category airplanes. These design

features are associated with electronic

flight control systems. The applicable

airworthiness regulations do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards

for these design features. These

proposed special conditions contain the

additional safety standards that the

Administrator considers necessary to

establish a level of safety equivalent to

that established by the existing

airworthiness standards. Additional

special conditions will be issued for this

and other novel or unusual design

features of Embraer Model 170 series

airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 16, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal

may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules

Docket (ANM–113), Docket No

iness standards. Additional

special conditions will be issued for this

and other novel or unusual design

features of Embraer Model 170 series

airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 16, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal

may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules

Docket (ANM–113), Docket No. NM249,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; or delivered in

duplicate to the Transport Airplane

Directorate at the above address. All

comments must be marked: Docket No.

NM249. Comments may be inspected in

the Rules Docket weekdays, except

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and

4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Groves, FAA, International Branch,

ANM–116, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–1503; facsimile

(425) 227–1149; e-mail

tom.groves@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested persons to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting written comments, data, or

views. The most helpful comments

reference a specific portion of the

special conditions, explain the reason

for any recommended change, and

include supporting data. We ask that

you send us two copies of written

comments.

We will file in the docket all

comments we receive, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerning these proposed special

conditions. The docket is available for

public inspection before and after the

comment closing date. If you wish to

review the docket in person, go to the

address in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

We will consider all comments we

receive on or before the closing date for

comments. We will consider comments

filed late if it is possible to do so

without incurring expense or delay

the

comment closing date. If you wish to

review the docket in person, go to the

address in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

We will consider all comments we

receive on or before the closing date for

comments. We will consider comments

filed late if it is possible to do so

without incurring expense or delay. We

may change the proposed special

conditions in light of the comments we

receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge

receipt of your comments on this

proposal, include with your comments

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the docket number appears. We

will stamp the date on the postcard and

mail it back to you.

Background

On May 20, 1999, Embraer applied for

a type certificate for its new Model ERJ–

170 airplane. Two basic versions of the

Model ERJ–170 are included in the

application. The ERJ–170–100 airplane

is a 69–78 passenger, twin-engine

regional jet with a maximum takeoff

weight of 81,240 pounds. The ERJ–170–

200 is a derivative with a lengthened

fuselage. Passenger capacity for the ERJ–

170–200 is increased to 86, and

maximum takeoff weight is increased to

85,960 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17,

Embraer must show that the Model ERJ–

170 series airplanes meet the applicable

provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as

amended by Amendments 25–1 through

25–98.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations

(i.e., part 25, as amended) do not

contain adequate or appropriate safety

standards for Embraer Model ERJ–170

series airplanes because of novel or

unusual design features, special

conditions are prescribed under the

provisions of § 21.16

le

provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as

amended by Amendments 25–1 through

25–98.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations

(i.e., part 25, as amended) do not

contain adequate or appropriate safety

standards for Embraer Model ERJ–170

series airplanes because of novel or

unusual design features, special

conditions are prescribed under the

provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable

airworthiness regulations and special

conditions, Embraer Model ERJ–170

series airplanes must comply with the

fuel vent and exhaust emission

requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the

noise certification requirements of 14

CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a

finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant

to § 611 of Public Law 93–574, the

‘‘Noise Control Act of 1972.’’

Special conditions, as defined in 14

CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance

with § 11.38 and become part of the type

certification basis in accordance with

§ 21.17(a)(2), Amendment 21–69,

effective September 16, 1991.

Special conditions are initially

applicable to the model for which they

are issued. Should the type certificate

for that model be amended later to

include any other model that

incorporates the same novel or unusual

design feature or should any other

model already included on the same

type certificate be modified to

incorporate the same novel or unusual

design features, the special conditions

would also apply to the other model

under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1),

Amendment 21–69, effective September

16, 1991.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The ERJ–170 airplane will use fly-by-

wire (FBW) technology as a means of

sending command and control signals to

the control surface actuators of the

rudder, rudder trim, elevator, spoilers,

horizontal stabilizer, and auto

speedbrake. The ailerons will be

controlled by a traditional cable linkage

to the hydraulic actuators.

VerDate Jan<31>2003

18:48 Jun 13, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM

16JNP1