35589Federal 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.
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. 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. 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. 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
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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