27914 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

4United States v. Philadelphia Nat’l Bank, 374

U.S. 321 (1963) (In an action challenging a

proposed merger of banks under the antitrust laws,

the Court held, in relevant part, that the geographic

market for the cluster of banking products and

services is local in nature).

5 12 U.S.C. 321 (requiring, in relevant part, a state

member bank to obtain the Board’s approval to

establish certain new branches ‘‘beyond the limits

of the city, town, or village in which the parent

bank is located’’).

6 12 CFR 229.2(f).

7 12 CFR 229.19(b).

8Pub. L. 106–229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000).

9Sec. 101(d), 114 Stat. 466–67.

consequences in the relevant geographic

market for the cluster of banking

products.4 Similarly, the legal standards

that apply to the location of bank

branches depend on certain conceptions

of geography.5 How should these kinds

of regulatory provisions be revised (if at

all) to more appropriately govern the

location of online banking and lending

activities?

Other laws or regulations contain

concepts of time that may not be

relevant in an online environment. For

example, the term ‘‘banking day’’ in

Regulation CC is defined as that part of

any business day on which an office of

a bank is open to the public for carrying

on substantially all of its banking

functions.6 Regulation CC requires

funds that must be available for

withdrawal on a business day to be

available at the start of business, which

may be as late as 9 a.m. local time of the

depositary bank.7 Are these provisions

appropriate in the context of a customer

that opened an account and performs all

banking functions online?

The Board recognizes that these

traditional boundaries of geography and

time may need to be reexamined in light

of online banking practices that enable

customers to obtain financial products

and services relatively free from

customary time or place constraints.

Comments are invited on how particular

laws and regulations may be modified to

accommodate the online delivery of

financial products and services under

these varying conditions.

Banking and Supervisory Regulations

and Policies

The Board invites comment on how

particular regulations or supervisory

policies specifically affect financial

institutions and their customers’ uses of

new technologies. For example, are

there any specific Board regulations that

unreasonably interfere with the use of

online technologies? Are there any

supervisory policies that impose

unreasonable burdens on a financial

institution’s design or adaptation of

online technologies? Are there any

regulations or other supervisory policies

regarding risk management that should

be clarified or amended to adequately

address any particular risks associated

with methods of online banking?

Electronic Signatures in Global and

National Commerce Act and Other

Federal Laws That Affect Online

Banking

The Board recognizes that the

enactment of the Electronic Signatures

in Global and National Commerce Act

(E-Sign Act) has addressed several

important legal and regulatory issues

regarding the uses of electronic media in

commercial transactions.8 For example,

the E-Sign Act permits the retention of

certain types of records in electronic

form (subject to specified conditions) if

such records are required by any other

law or regulation.9 Do any of the Board’s

regulations or supervisory policies

require a banking organization to use or

retain written forms, notices, or other

records in a manner that hinders its

ability to deliver financial products or

services over the Internet? The Board

requests comment on how particular

provisions of the E-Sign Act, or any

other law, affect financial institutions

and their customers’ ability to use (or

ease of using) new technologies.

Differing Legal Requirements

Do certain provisions of Federal law

that apply to online banking and

lending practices make compliance with

other provisions of State law (or laws

enforced by foreign states) more costly?

Are there particular aspects of

conducting online banking and lending

activities that could benefit from a

single set of legal standards that can be

applied uniformly nationwide?

Are there any inconsistencies between

Federal and State laws or regulations

that impede the electronic provision or

use of financial products or services?

For example, do State laws or

regulations apply differently to statechartered financial institutions, relative

to federally chartered institutions, that

conduct online banking and lending?

Are there any State laws or regulations,

such as licensing provisions for banking

and other financial products and

services, that affect the nationwide

provision of financial products or

services over the Internet?

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2001.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–12689 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–ANE–59–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt &

Whitney JT8D Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed a new airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to Pratt &

Whitney (PW) JT8D series turbofan

engines. That action would have

superseded an existing AD to require

initial and repetitive borescope

inspections for loss of fuel nozzle nut

torque and nozzle support wear, and

replacement or modification of the fuel

nozzles at the next accessibility of the

diffuser build group as terminating

action to the inspections. That proposal

was prompted by reports of loss of fuel

nozzle nut torque and nozzle support

wear. Since the issuance of that NPRM,

the FAA has reevaluated the likelihood

that the unsafe condition will exist or

develop on other products of the same

type design. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara

Goodman, Aerospace Engineer, Engine

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;

telephone (781) 238–7130; fax (781)

238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

add a new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to PW JT8D series turbofan

engines, was published in the Federal

Register on May 1, 1998 (63 FR 24138).

The proposed rule would have required

initial and repetitive borescope

inspections for loss of fuel nozzle nut

torque and nozzle support wear, and

replacement or modification of the fuel

nozzles at the next accessibility of the

diffuser build group as terminating

action to the inspections. That action

was prompted by reports of loss of fuel

nozzle nut torque and nozzle support

wear. The proposed actions were

intended to prevent loss of fuel nozzle

nut torque and nozzle support wear,

which could result in a fuel leak and

possible engine fire.

Since issuing that NPRM, the FAA

has reevaluated the safety concerns that

the proposed actions would have

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27915

addressed using the most recent fleet

data. Field experience shows that

leaking fuel nozzles, which can lead to

burn-through of the diffuser case, was a

significant flight safety concern

primarily at the number 7 location

because of the proximity of oil lines.

This is addressed by AD 95–02–16.

To date, there have not been any

incidents of diffuser case burn-through

due to fuel leakage across the fuel

nozzle secondary seal where the fuel

nozzle configuration is as prescribed by

AD 95–02–16. There has been one

incident where the fuel nozzle at the

number 7 position has leaked due to

loss of nut torque, ignited, and burned

through the diffuser case. However,

because the oil line fittings had been

replaced in accordance with AD 95–02–

16, there was no burn-through of the oil

fittings and no oil fire. The following

requirements of AD 95–02–16, are

sufficient to mitigate the safety concern:

• Initial and repetitive inspections of

the number 7 fuel nozzle and support

assembly, AND

• Replacement of the number 7 fuel

nozzle and support assembly with a

more leak resistant configuration, AND

• Replacement of aluminum oil

pressure and scavenge tube fittings with

steel fittings, AND

• Replacement of an aluminum oil

scavenge line bolt with a steel bolt.

Upon further consideration, the FAA

has determined that there is no longer

a likelihood that the unsafe condition

will exist or develop on other products

of the same type design, and as a result,

superseding the existing AD is no longer

required. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this notice of proposed

rulemaking constitutes only such action,

and does not preclude the agency from

issuing another notice in the future, nor

does it commit the agency to any course

of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is

neither a proposed nor a final rule and

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket 97–ANE–59–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

May 1, 1998, (63 FR 24138), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 10, 2001.

Francis A. Favara,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12674 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Indian Arts and Crafts Board

25 CFR Part 309

RIN 1076–AE16

Protection of Products of Indian Art

and Craftsmanship

AGENCY: Indian Arts and Crafts Board

(IACB), DOI.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposal establishes

regulations to provide guidance to

persons who produce, market, or

purchase arts and crafts marketed as

Indian products, as defined under the

Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. The

proposed regulations further clarify the

definition of ‘‘Indian product’’ by

including specific examples of ‘‘Indian

product,’’ as well as examples of what

is not an ‘‘Indian product,’’ in the

regulations implementing the Indian

Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of

2000, an amendment to the Indian Arts

and Crafts Act of 1990.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before August 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on

the proposed rule for the Indian Arts

and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000, you

may submit your comments by any one

of several methods. You may mail

comments to: Director, Indian Arts and

Crafts Board, Room 4004–MIB, 1849 C

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

You may also fax comments to 202–

208–5196 or comment via the Internet to

iacb@os.doi.gov. Please also include

‘‘Attn: RIN 1076–AE16 and your name

and return address in your mailed,

faxed, or Internet message. Please

submit Internet comments as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

If you do not receive a confirmation

from the system that we received your

Internet message, contact us directly at

202–208–3773.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Meridith Z. Stanton, Director, Indian

Arts and Crafts Board, Room 4004–MIB,

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC

20240, telephone 202–208–3773 (not a

toll-free call), fax 202–208–5196, or email iacb@os.doi.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board

(IACB) was created by Congress

pursuant to the Act of August 27, 1935

(49 Stat. 891; 25 U.S.C. 305 et seq.; 18

U.S.C. §§ 1158–59). The IACB is

responsible for implementing the Indian

Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, promoting

the development of American Indian

and Alaska Native arts and crafts,

improving the economic status of

members of federally recognized Tribes,

and helping to establish and expand

marketing opportunities for arts and

crafts produced by American Indians

and Alaska Natives.

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of

1990, Public Law 101–644 (hereinafter

the ‘‘1990 Act’’), is essentially a truthin-marketing law designed to prevent

marketing of products misrepresented as

produced by Indians when the products

are not, in fact, made by an Indian as

defined by the 1990 Act. Under Section

104(a) of the 1990 Act (18 U.S.C.

1159(c)(2)), ‘‘the terms ‘Indian product’

and ‘product of a particular Indian Tribe

or Indian arts and crafts organization’

have the meaning given such term in

regulations which may be promulgated

by the Secretary of the Interior.’’

Under the 1990 Act’s current

implementing regulations, at 25 CFR

Part 309, prior to these amendments, the

term ‘‘Indian product’’ is defined as:

‘‘(1) In general. ‘‘Indian product’’

means any art or craft product made by

an Indian.

‘‘(2) Illustrations. The term Indian

product includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Art works that are in a traditional

or non-traditional Indian style or

medium;

(ii) Crafts that are in a traditional or

non-traditional Indian style or medium;

(iii) Handcrafts, i.e. objects created

with the help of only such devices as

allow the manual skill of the maker to

condition the shape and design of each

individual product.

‘‘(3) Exclusion for products made

before 1935. The provisions of this part

shall not apply to any art or craft

products made before 1935.’’

The above definition reflects the

IACB’s determination that ‘‘Indian

product’’ under the 1990 Act applies to

Indian arts and crafts, and not all

products generally. This determination

is consistent with the IACB organic

legislation, the IACB’s primary mission

as established by Congress, and the

Congressional intent of the 1990 Act.

The 1935 cut-off date for products