61260 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2Some of OTS’s CMPs are in a commonly

administered statute, 12 U.S.C. 1818. Each agency

that administers this statute is making identical

adjustments.

3 12 CFR 510.6; 61 FR 56118 (October 31, 1996).

approving it, certifies that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule is primarily

administrative in nature and is intended

to benefit small entities and private

individuals by simplifying the

requirements that, if followed, would

enable them to take advantage of the

technology available in the marketplace

and on the Service’s Internet Website to

electronically generate certain

immigration and naturalization forms.

The number of small entities affected by

this rule will not be substantial.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any 1-year, and it will not

significantly or uniquely effect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of

1996. This rule will not result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more; a major increase in

costs or prices; or significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process under

section 6(a)(3)(A).

Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the

National Government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with section 6 of Executive

Order 13132, it is determined that this

rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a federalism summary impact

statement.

Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 299

Immigration, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, part 299 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 299—IMMIGRATION FORMS

1. The authority citation for part 299

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part

2.

2. Section 299.4, is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv);

b. Revising the seventh sentence in

paragraph (b)(1);

c. Removing paragraph (b)(3);

d. Revising the phrase ‘‘Room 5307’’

to ‘‘Room 4034’’ in paragraph (e).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 299.4 Reproduction of Public Use Forms

by public and private entities.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) Paper specifications (White,

standard copier or typing paper).

(b) * * *

(1) * * * An electronic reproduction

of a multi page form does not need to

match the head-to-head or head-to-foot

printing configuration of the official

form. * * *

* * * * *

Dated: October 4, 2000.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Services.

[FR Doc. 00–26621 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Parts 509 and 510

[Docket No. 2000–89]

RIN 1550–AB41

Rules of Practice and Procedure for

Adjudicatory Proceedings; Civil Money

Penalty Inflation Adjustment

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision,

Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Civil Monetary

Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of

1990 requires all federal agencies with

statutory authority to impose civil

money penalties (CMPs) to evaluate and

adjust those CMPs every four years. OTS

last adjusted its CMP statutes in 1996.

Consequently, OTS is issuing this final

rule to implement the required

adjustments to its CMP statutes. OTS is

also moving its chart displaying

adjusted CMPs to the part containing

OTS’s procedural rules for adjudicatory

proceedings.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy P. Leary, Counsel (Banking &

Finance), (202) 906–7170, Regulations

and Legislation Division, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Federal Civil Monetary Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 1

(FCMPIAA) requires each agency to

make inflationary adjustments to the

CMPs in statutes that it administers. 2

Under the FCMPIAA, agencies must

make those adjustments at least once

every four years. OTS last adjusted its

CMPs in 1996. 3 An increased CMP

applies only to violations that occur

after the increase takes effect.

While the CMP statutes of many

agencies provide for minimum and

maximum penalty amount, all of OTS’s

CMP statutes provide only for a daily

maximum amount. Today’s rule

therefore refers only to maximum CMPs.

Today’s increases in maximum CMPs

may not necessarily affect the amount of

any CMP that OTS may seek for a

particular violation. OTS calculates

each CMP on a case-by-case basis based

upon a variety of factors (including the

gravity of the violation, whether the

violation was willful or recurring, and

any harm to the depository institution).

As a result, the maximums merely serve

as a cap.

Under the statute, the agency

determines the inflation adjustment by

increasing the maximum CMP by a

‘‘cost-of-living’’ adjustment. The ‘‘costof-living’’ adjustment is the percentage

by which the Consumer Price Index

(CPI) for the month of June of the

calendar year preceding the adjustment

exceeds the CPI for the month of June

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 61261

4Three CMPs are subject to a slightly different

treatment because the statutorily mandated

computation and the rounding rules did not result

in any adjustment in 1996. This affects the $2,000

penalties under 12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(4) and

1467a(r)(1), and the $350 penalty under 42 U.S.C.

4012a(f). Under the statute, we must use the CPI–

U for June of the year when the penalty was ‘‘last

set or adjusted.‘‘ Because these penalties were not

adjusted in 1996, we must use the CPI–U for year

in which the CMP was last set by an enactment. The

statute also limits the amount of the first adjustment

to a maximum 10 percent increase

The CMPs in sections 1464(v)(4) and 1467a(r)(1)

were enacted as part of the Financial Institutions

Reforms, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.

Pub. L. No. 101–73, 103 Stat. 183 (August 9, 1989).

The CPI–U for June 1989 was 124.1. Dividing the

CPI–U for June 1999 (166.2) by 124.1 yields 1.3392.

This factor applied to the $2,000 CMP yields

$2,678, an increased penalty of $678. Under the

rounding rules, this increase must be rounded to

the nearest $1,000. Because this is the first time we

have adjusted these CMPs, however, our adjustment

cannot exceed 10% of the original CMP.

Accordingly, we have increased the CMPs in

sections 1464(v)(4) and 1467a(r)(1) by 10%,

resulting in new CMPs of $2,200.

The $350 penalty in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) was

enacted in the Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. Pub. L. No.

103–325, 108 Stat. 2160 (September 23, 1994). The

CPI–U for June 1994 was 148.0. Dividing the CPI–

U for June 1999 (166.2) by 148.0 yields 1.1229. This

factor applied to the $350 CMP yields $393, an

increased penalty of $43. Under the rounding rules,

this increase must be rounded to the nearest

multiple of $100. Because the nearest multiple of

$100 is zero, there is no adjustment.

5The other federal banking agencies include their

CMP inflation adjustment regulations in their rules

of practice and procedure. See 12 CFR 19.240

(Office of the Comptroller of the Currency); 12 CFR

263.65 (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 308.116 and

308.132 (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation); 12

CFR 747.1001 (National Credit Union

Administration).

6 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

7 id.

8 12 U.S.C. 4802.

9 5 U.S.C. 603.

of the calendar year in which the

amount of the CMP was last set or

adjusted. OTS must use the CPI for All

Urban Consumers (CPI–U) published by

the Department of Labor.

The statute contains specific rules for

rounding any increase based on the size

of the CMP. Agencies do not have

discretion in choosing whether to adjust

a maximum CMP, how much to adjust

a maximum CMP, or the methods used

to determine the adjustment.

II. Summary of Calculation

To explain the inflation adjustment

calculation for CMP amounts that were

last adjusted in 1996, we will use the

following example. Under 12 U.S.C.

1818(i), as adjusted under 12 CFR 510.6,

OTS may impose a daily maximum

third-tier CMP not to exceed $1,100,000

for violations of certain banking laws.

First, we determine the appropriate

CPI–Us. The statute requires OTS to use

the CPI–U for June of the calendar year

preceding the year of adjustment. Here,

because we are adjusting CMPs in 2000,

we use the CPI–U for June 1999, which

was 166.2. We must also determine the

CPI–U for June of the year the CMP was

last set by law or adjusted for inflation.

Because OTS last adjusted the CMPs

under 12 U.S.C. 1818 in 1996, we use

the CPI–U for June 1996, which was

156.7.

Second, we calculate the cost of living

adjustment or inflation factor. To do

this, we divide the CPI–U for June 1999

(166.2) by the CPI–U for June 1996

(156.7). Our result is 1.061 (i.e., a 6.1

percent increase).

Third, we calculate the raw inflation

adjustment. To do this, we multiply the

maximum penalty amounts by the

inflation factor. In our example,

$1,100,000 multiplied by the inflation

factor of 1.061 equals $1,167,100.

Fourth, we round the raw inflation

amounts according to the rounding rules

in section 5(a) of the FCMPIAA. Since

we round only the increased amount,

we calculate the increased amount by

the subtracting the current maximum

penalty amounts from the raw

maximum inflation adjustments.

Accordingly, the increased amount for

the maximum penalty in our example is

$67,100 (i.e., $1,167,100 less

$1,100,000). Under the rounding rules,

if the penalty is greater than $200,000,

we round the increase to the nearest

multiple of $25,000. Therefore, the

maximum penalty increase for our

example is $75,000.

Fifth, we add the rounded increase to

the maximum penalty amount last set or

adjusted. In our example, $1,100,000

plus $75,000 yields a maximum

inflation adjusted penalty amount of

$1,175,000.4 Today’s chart also corrects

minor errors in our earlier rule. The

chart accompanying the 1996

adjustment misstated the amount of the

CMP under 12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(3) for

violations of the Holding Company Act.

The correct CMP in section 1467a(i)(3)

is $25,000, not $5,000. The 1996 rule

should have adjusted this $25,000

amount to $27,500. That figure is

unchanged by today’s computation. We

have also added new references to two

CMPs that were inadvertently omitted

from the 1996 chart. These include

CMPs under section 1467a (i)(2)

(authorizing a CMP of $25,000, which

has been adjusted to $27,500) and 12

U.S.C. 1884 (authorizing a CMP of $100,

which has been adjusted to $110).

Finally, we have moved the CMP

inflation adjustment regulation from 12

CFR Part 510 (Miscellaneous

Organizational Regulations) to 12 CFR

Part 509 (Rules of Practice and

Procedure in Adjudicatory Proceedings).

This relocation should make the chart

easier to find.5

III. Need for an Immediately Effective

Final Rule

To issue a final rule without public

notice and comment, an agency must

find good cause that notice and

comment are impracticable,

unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest.6 To issue a rule that is

immediately effective, the agency must

also find good cause for dispensing with

the 30-day delay required by the

Administrative Procedure Act.7

Moreover, section 302 of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 8

states that a final rule imposing new

requirements must take effect on the

first day of a calendar quarter following

its publication. That section provides,

however, that an agency may determine

that the rule should take effect earlier

upon a finding of good cause.

Under the statute, agencies must make

the required CMP inflation adjustments:

(1) According to the very specific

formula in the statute; and (2) within

four years of the last inflation

adjustment, or by October 31, 2000.

Agencies have no discretion as to the

amount or timing of the adjustment. The

regulation is ministerial, technical, and

noncontroversial. Accordingly, OTS

believes that notice and comment are

unnecessary. For these same reasons,

OTS believes that there is good cause to

make this rule effective immediately

upon publication.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

An initial regulatory flexibility

analysis under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) is required only

when an agency must publish a general

notice of proposed rulemaking.9 As

already noted, OTS has determined that

publication of a notice of proposed

rulemaking is not necessary for this

final rule. Accordingly, the RFA does

not require an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis. Nevertheless, OTS

has considered the likely impact of the

rule on small entities and believes that

the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

V. Executive Order 12866

OTS has determined that this final

rule does not constitute a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

61262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

VI. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

OTS had determined that the final

rule will not result in expenditures by

state, local, or tribal governments or by

the private sector of $100 million or

more. Accordingly, this rulemaking is

not subject to section 202 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 509

Administrative practice and

procedure, Penalties.

12 CFR Part 510

Administrative practice and

procedure.

Accordingly, OTS amends chapter V,

title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as

set forth below:

PART 509—RULES OF PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE IN ADJUDICATORY

PROCEEDINGS

1. The authority citation for part 509

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504, 554–557; 12

U.S.C. 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1817(j), 1818,

3349, 4717; 15 U.S.C. 78(l), 78o–5, 78u–2; 28

U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 5321; 42 U.S.C.

4012a.

2. In § 509.103, add paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 509.103 Civil money penalties.

* * * * *

(c) Inflation adjustment. Under the

Federal Civil Monetary Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28

U.S.C. 2461 note), OTS must adjust for

inflation the civil monetary penalties in

statutes that it administers. The

following chart displays the adjusted

civil money penalties. The amounts in

this chart apply to violations that occur

after October 17, 2000:

U.S. Code citation CMP description New maximum

amount

12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(4) ........ Reports of Condition—1st Tier .......................................................................................................... $2,200

12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(5) ........ Reports of Condition—2nd Tier ......................................................................................................... 22,000

12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(6) ........ Reports of Condition—3rd Tier .......................................................................................................... 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1467(d) ............. Refusal to Cooperate in Exam ........................................................................................................... 5,500

12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(2) ....... Holding Company Act Violation ......................................................................................................... 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(3) ....... Holding Company Act Violation ......................................................................................................... 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(1) ....... Late/Inaccurate Reports—1st Tier ..................................................................................................... 2,200

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(2) ....... Late/Inaccurate Reports—2nd Tier .................................................................................................... 22,000

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(3) ....... Late/Inaccurate Reports—3rd Tier ..................................................................................................... 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(A) ... Change in Control—1st Tier .............................................................................................................. 5,500

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(B) ... Change in Control—2nd Tier ............................................................................................................. 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(C) .. Change in Control—3rd Tier .............................................................................................................. 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(A) ..... Violation of Law or Unsafe or Unsound Practice—1st Tier ............................................................... 5,500

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(B) ..... Violation of Law or Unsafe or Unsound Practice—2nd Tier ............................................................. 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(C) .... Violation of Law or Unsafe or Unsound Practice—3rd Tier .............................................................. 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1884 ................. Violation of Security Rules ................................................................................................................. 110

12 U.S.C. 3349(b) ............. Appraisals Violation—1st Tier ............................................................................................................ 5,500

12 U.S.C. 3349(b) ............. Appraisals Violation—2nd Tier ........................................................................................................... 27,500

12 U.S.C. 3349(b) ............. Appraisals Violation—3rd Tier ........................................................................................................... 1,175,000

42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) ............ Flood Insurance ................................................................................................................................. 350/115,000

PART 510—MISCELLANEOUS

ORGANIZATIONAL REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 510

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464;

Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890; Pub. L. 104–

134, 110 Stat. 1321–358.

§ 510.6 [Removed]

4. Section 510.6 is removed.

Dated: October 4, 2000.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Ellen Seidman,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–26336 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–01–AD; Amendment

39–11923; AD 2000–20–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerotechnik

s.r.o. Model L 13 SEH VIVAT Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to all Aerotechnik s.r.o.

(Aerotechnik) Model L 13 SEH VIVAT

sailplanes. This AD requires you to

inspect the tail-fuselage hinge for

strength requirements and damage, and

also requires you to replace any hinge

with damage or that does not meet

strength requirements. This AD is the

result of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI)

issued by the airworthiness authority for

the Czech Republic. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

detect and correct any tail-fuselage

hinge that is damaged or has inadequate

material characteristics. Any tailfuselage hinge with damage or

inadequate material characteristics

could fail and result in loss of

controlled flight.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

November 27, 2000.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulations as of November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

Aerotechnik s.r.o., 686 04 Kunovic,

Czech Republic; telephone: +420 632

537 111; facsimile: +420 632 537 900.

You may examine this information at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–CE–01–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,