# FDIC FIL-53-2003: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT > Federal · Agency guidance · Superseded URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03053 ## Section - **Citation:** FDIC FIL-53-2003 - **Heading:** ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** Superseded - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** FDIC Financial Institution Letters / ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ## Text 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 EP16JN03.029 115 / 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 EP16JN03.036 115 / 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ## Nearby sections - [FDIC FIL-1-2002 FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL ACT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL02001.md) - [FDIC FIL-1-2010 Employee Compensation Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL10001.md) - [FDIC FIL-1-2024 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for Fourth Quarter 2023](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL24001.md) - [FDIC FIL-2-2004 Foreign Assets Control Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL04002.md) - [FDIC FIL-2-2020 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for Fourth Quarter 2019](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL20002.md) - [FDIC FIL-3-2003 FILING PROCEDURES](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03003.md) - [FDIC FIL-4-2006 Commercial Real Estate Lending Proposed Interagency Guidance](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL06004.md) - [FDIC FIL-4-2021 Revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL21004.md) - [FDIC FIL-4-2023 Guidance to Help Financial Institutions and Facilitate Recovery in Areas of California Affected by Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL23004.md) - [FDIC FIL-4-2025 FDIC Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL25004.md) - [FDIC FIL-5-2000 Consumer Credit Reporting Practices](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL00005.md) - [FDIC FIL-5-2003 LETTER TO STAKEHOLDERS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03005.md) - [FDIC FIL-5-2021 Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Considerations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL21005.md) - [FDIC FIL-6-2000 Special Alert](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL00006.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03053. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.