Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 185 / Friday, September 22, 2000 / Notices 57427

1 62 FR 1950 (January 14, 1997).

2 62 FR 12883 (March 18, 1997).

3This notice refers to the statutory provisions and

their implementing regulations, where applicable,

collectively as the Rhode Island Law.

4 113 Stat. 1338, 1352–59 (November 12, 1999) (to

be codified at U.S.C. 6701).

5The thirteen Safe Harbors are enumerated in

clauses (i) through (xiii) of section 104(d)(2)(B).

Each Safe Harbor is referred to in this notice by

clause. Thus, Safe Harbor (viii) refers to seciton

104(d)(2)(B)(viii).

the all-cargo air carriers. Although a

precise amount cannot be computed

because of the limitations of the report,

an estimation is possible for revenue

budgeting purposes.

Donald W. Bright,

Director, Office of Airline Information,

Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

[FR Doc. 00–24429 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–FE–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

[Docket No. 00–18]

Notice of Request for Preemption

Determination

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) is publishing for

comment a written request for the OCC’s

opinion about whether Federal law

preempts certain provisions of the

Financial Institutions Insurance Sales

Act (FIISA), enacted by the State of

Rhode Island in 1996. The purpose of

this notice and request for comment is

to provide interested persons with an

opportunity to submit comments prior

to the OCC’s issuance of a written

opinion in this matter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Communications Division, Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E

Street, SW., Third Floor, Attention:

Docket No. 00–18, Washington, DC

20219. You may submit comments

electronically to

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov or by

facsimile transmission to (202) 874–

5274. You can inspect and photocopy

the comments at the OCC’s Public

Reference Room, 250 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. on business days. You can

make an appointment to inspect the

comments by calling (202) 874–5043.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Campbell, Attorney, or Stuart Feldstein,

Assistant Director, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities Division, (202)

874–5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1996, the Financial Institutions

Insurance Association (Requester) filed

with the OCC a request for the OCC’s

opinion on whether Federal law

preempts certain provisions of a Rhode

Island statute pertaining to insurance

sales by financial institutions. The OCC

published a notice and request for

comment on January 14, 1997.1 On

March 18, 1997, the OCC extended the

comment period until May 15, 1997,2 so

that interested persons could consider,

and comment on, the effect of a

regulation implementing the Rhode

Island statute that was then under

consideration by the Rhode Island

Department of Business Regulation.

Throughout this time period, the

Congress was actively considering

various financial modernization bills

containing provisions relevant to the

issues raised by the Requester. Congress

passed such legislation—the GrammLeach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106–102, 113

Stat. 1338)—in November 1999 (GLBA).

On July 26, 2000, the Requester renewed

its request that the OCC issue an

opinion on whether or not Federal law,

now including the relevant provisions

of GLBA, preempts certain provisions of

Rhode Island Law.3

Section 114 of the Riegle-Neal

Interstate Banking and Branching

Efficiency Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–328,

108 Stat. 2338) generally requires the

OCC to publish in the Federal Register

a descriptive notice of certain requests

that the OCC receives for preemption

opinions. 12 U.S.C. 43. Under section

114, the OCC must publish notice before

it issues any opinion letter or

interpretive rule concluding that

Federal law preempts the application to

a national bank of any State law in four

designated areas: community

reinvestment, consumer protection, fair

lending, or the establishment of

intrastate branches. Pursuant to section

114, interested persons have at least 30

days to submit written comments.

Without making a determination as to

whether section 114 applies to this

request, the OCC has decided that it is

appropriate to use notice and comment

procedures given the broad interest in

the issues presented. The OCC will

publish in the Federal Register any final

opinion letter we issue concluding that

Federal law preempts the provisions of

the Rhode Island Law that are the

subject of the request.

Description of the Request for OCC

Preemption Opinion

The OCC has been asked to provide

its views on whether section 104 of the

GLBA 4 preempts certain specific

provisions of the Rhode Island Law.

Section 104(d)(2)(A) of GLBA

provides that ‘‘[i]n accordance with the

legal standards for preemption set forth

in the decision of the Supreme Court of

the United States in Barnett Bank of

Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S.

25 (1996), no State may, by statute,

regulation, order, interpretation, or

other action, prevent or significantly

interfere with the ability of a depository

institution, or an affiliate thereof, to

engage, directly or indirectly, either by

itself or in conjunction with an affiliate

or any other person, in any insurance

sales, solicitation, or crossmarketing

activity.’’ However, State provisions are

not preempted pursuant to section 104

if they are substantially the same as but

no more burdensome or restrictive than

any of the thirteen specific provisions—

or Safe Harbors—described in section

104(d)(2)(B).5 The Requester asserts that

five specific provisions of the FIISA are

preempted and that none of the Safe

Harbors protects these provisions.

Anti-tying Prohibition

The Requester contends that Federal

law should preempt the anti-tying

provisions in section 6 of the FIISA and

its implementing regulation.

Specifically, section 6 provides that:

(a) No financial institution may offer a

banking product or service, or fix or vary the

conditions of this offer, on a condition or

requirement that the customer obtains

insurance from the financial institution, or

any particular insurance producer.

(b) No person shall require or imply that

the purchase of an insurance product from a

financial institution by a customer or

prospective customer of the institution is

required as a condition of, or is in any way

related to, the lending of money or extension

of credit, the establishment or maintenance

of a trust account, the establishment or

maintenance of a checking or savings account

or other deposit account, or the provision of

services related to any of these activities. R.I.

Gen. Laws 27–58–6.

The Requester contends that this

prohibition is much broader than a

prohibition against coercive tying

because it prohibits a loan officer from

mentioning to a customer that insurance

products may be available, at a

discount, as part of a package of bank

services. The Requester further contends

that these prohibitions are more

burdensome and restrictive than Safe

Harbor (viii) and frustrate, hamper,

57428 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 185 / Friday, September 22, 2000 / Notices

6R.I. Code R. 02–030–090 (2000).

7R.I. Code R. 02–030–090, § 3 (2000).

impair or interfere with a national

bank’s ability to exercise its insurance

powers.

Sales Force Restrictions

Section 8 of the FIISA, and its

implementing regulation, prohibits bank

employees with lending or deposit

taking responsibilities from soliciting

and selling insurance. Specifically,

section 8 provides that:

Solicitation for the purchase or sale of

insurance by a financial institution shall be

conducted only by persons whose

responsibilities do not include loan

transactions or other transactions involving

the extension of credit, or the taking of

deposits. For the purposes of this section

however, solicitation does not include

signage on the premises. (R.I. Gen. Laws 27–

58–8.)

The Requester contends that this

provision would prohibit a properly

state-licensed private banker from both

accepting deposits and selling insurance

products to a private banking customer.

The Requester further contends that this

prohibition would destroy ‘‘platform

programs’’ and those in which staff

members work as dual employees, and

could limit the ability of certain

financial institutions, particularly

smaller ones, to exercise their insurance

powers. The Requester asserts that this

provision is more burdensome and

restrictive than any of the Safe Harbors

and would prevent or significantly

interfere with the ability of a financial

institution to exercise its authority to

sell insurance.

Confidential Customer Information

Section 10 of the FIISA, and its

implementing regulation, prohibits

financial institutions from using or

disclosing certain customer information

for the purpose of selling or soliciting

insurance. Specifically, section 10

provides that:

(1)(b) ‘‘Nonpublic customer information’’

means information regarding a person that

has been derived from a record of a financial

institution, including information concerning

the terms and conditions of insurance

coverage, insurance expirations, insurance

claims, or insurance history of an individual.

Nonpublic customer information does not

include customer names, addresses or

telephone numbers.

(2) No financial institution shall use any

nonpublic customer information for the

purpose of selling or soliciting the purchase

of insurance or provide the nonpublic

customer information to a third party for the

purpose of another’s sale or solicitation of the

purchase of insurance. (R.I. Gen. Laws 27–

58–10.)

The Requester contends that this

provision would prevent a bank from

using information it has obtained to

identify customer needs. The Requester

further contends that this provision

would hurt third party marketing

programs as well as bank-owned

agencies with dedicated agents and

‘‘platform programs,’’ and damage

marketing and sales techniques such as

remote or direct marketing and retailface-to-face programs. The Requester contends that section

10 of the FIISA is not substantially the

same as and is more burdensome and

restrictive than Safe Harbor (vi) and

would prevent or significantly interfere

with a financial institution’s ability to

exercise its insurance powers.

Insurance in Connection With a Loan

Section 11 of the FIISA generally

requires that loan and insurance

applications be completed

independently and through separate

documents. Specifically, section 11

provides that:

(a) If insurance is required as a condition

of obtaining a loan, the credit and insurance

transactions shall be completed

independently and through separate

documents.

(b) A loan for premiums on required

insurance shall not be included in the

primary credit without the written consent of

the customer.

(R.I. Gen. Laws 27–58–11.)

The Requester contends that the

requirement that loan and insurance

transactions be completed

‘‘independently’’ as well as through

separate documents will inconvenience

both the applicant and the financial

institution involved in the two

transactions by requiring the applicant

to make a separate trip to the bank,

complete a separate set of documents,

and meet with more than one employee

of the bank. The Requester contends

that this requirement is particularly

burdensome when coupled with other

requirements contained in the FIISA,

such as the requirements governing

physical location of insurance activities

and sales force.

The Requester contends that this

provision is not protected by any of the

Safe Harbors. The Requester asserts that

although Safe Harbor (xi) protects State

laws requiring that credit and insurance

transactions be completed through

separate documents, the Safe Harbor

does not protect States laws that require

that the transactions be completed

‘‘independently.’’ Thus, the Requester

contends that this provision is not

protected by any of the Safe Harbors and

would prevent or significantly interfere

with the ability of a financial institution

to exercise its insurance powers.

Physical Separation of Insurance

Activities

Section 12 of the FIISA, and its

implementing regulation, generally

permits financial institutions to solicit

and sell insurance only from an office

physically separated from the banking

activities of the institution. Specifically,

section 12 provides that:

The place of solicitation or sale of

insurance by any financial institution shall

be from an office physically separated from

the banking activities of the institution.

Physical separation shall not be defined as a

separate building. The commissioner shall

have the authority to promulgate rules to

implement this section pursuant to § 27–58–

4.

(R.I. Gen. Laws 27–58–12.)

The Requester contends that this

requirement would prevent a trained

and licensed bank employee from

soliciting a sale of a life insurance

product if the employee (1) was also a

loan officer; (2) had an office not

physically separated from core banking

activities; (3) had just accepted a loan

application from the customer; or (4)

had learned of the customer’s need for

the product as a result of reading his

loan application. Thus, the Requester

contends that none of the Safe Harbors

protects this requirement from

preemption, and that these limitations

would prevent or significantly interfere

with the financial institution’s ability to

exercise its authority to sell insurance.

The Requester also contends that this

requirement would impact small

institutions most severely.

Regulations Implementing the FIISA

Provisions

The Requester also asks the OCC to

address whether or not Federal law

would preempt the regulations

implementing the State statutory

provisions for the same reasons

described above. 6 In addition, the

Requester also specifically asks the OCC

to opine on whether a regulatory

provision that would confer on the

Rhode Island Department of Business

Regulation authority to examine the

insurance activities of the bank for

compliance with the Rhode Island

implementing regulations conflicts with

Federal law. 7 The OCC invites

comments on this provisions and all the

implementing regulations, including

how they interact with the FIISA

provisions.

Request for Comments

The OCC requests comments on the

issues described above.

Dated: September 14, 2000.

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

Request for Comments

The OCC requests comments on the

issues described above.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 185 / Friday, September 22, 2000 / Notices 57429

Dated: September 14, 2000.

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 00–24340 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Form 8854

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is

soliciting comments concerning Form

8854, Expatriation Information

Statement.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before November 21,

2000 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form and instructions

should be directed to Martha R. Brinson,

(202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Expatriation Information

Statement OMB Number: 1545–1567.

Form Number: Form 8854.

Abstract: Internal Revenue Code

Section 6039G requires persons who

lose U.S. citizenship to provide

information concerning citizenship,

income tax liability, net worth, and net

assets. Form 8854 is used to report this

information.

Current Actions: There are no changes

being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Number of Respondents—

Part I: 10,000.

Estimated Number of Respondents—

Parts I and II: 1,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent—Part

I: 1 hr., 46 min.

Estimated Time Per Respondent—

Parts I and II: 7 hr., 8 min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 23,060.

The following paragraph applies to all

of the collections of information covered

by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a valid OMB control number.

Books or records relating to a collection

of information must be retained as long

as their contents may become material

in the administration of any internal

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and

tax return information are confidential,

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments

submitted in response to this notice will

be summarized and/or included in the

request for OMB approval. All

comments will become a matter of

public record. Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology; and (e) estimates of capital

or start-up costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information.

Approved: September 18, 2000.

Garrick R. Shear,

IRS Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–24442 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Form 8818

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is

soliciting comments concerning Form

8818, Optional Form To Record

Redemption of Series EE and I U.S.

Savings Bonds Issued After 1989.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before November 21,

2000 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form and instructions

should be directed to Martha R. Brinson,

(202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Optional Form To Record

Redemption of Series EE and I U.S.

Savings Bonds Issued After 1989.

OMB Number: 1545–1151.

Form Number: Form 8818.

Abstract: Under Internal Revenue

Code section 135, if an individual

redeems U.S. savings bonds issued after

1989 and pays qualified higher

education expenses during the year, the

interest on the bonds is excludable from

income. Form 8818 can be used to keep

a record of the bonds cashed so that the

taxpayer can claim the proper interest

exclusion.

Current Actions: There are no changes

being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

50,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 38

min.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 32,000.

The following paragraph applies to all

of the collections of information covered

by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a valid OMB control number.

Books or records relating to a collection

of information must be retained as long

as their contents may become material

in the administration of any internal

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and

tax return information are confidential,

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments

submitted in response to this notice will