Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment
23,201 words·~105 min read·
/register/2008/02/12/08-570A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6705-01-M 73 29 Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Proposed Rules FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Parts 204 and 209 [Regulations D and I; Docket No. R-1307] Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions; Issue and Cancellation of Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Board is publishing for comment proposed amendments to Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) and Regulation I (Issue and Cancellation of Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock).
Of these, only two are intended to represent substantive changes from existing law, while the remaining amendments are intended principally as clarifications. The first of the proposed substantive amendments would amend Regulation D to implement Section 603 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 by authorizing member banks of the Federal Reserve System to enter into pass-through arrangements. Previously, member banks were statutorily prohibited from passing required reserve balances through a correspondent institution.
The second of the proposed substantive amendments would eliminate the provision in the “savings deposit” definition of Regulation D limiting certain kinds of transfers from savings deposits to not more than three per month. As a result, all kinds of transfers and withdrawals from a savings deposit that must be limited in number per month would be subject to the same numeric limitation of not more than six per month. The remaining proposed amendments, intended as clarifications, would reorganize the provisions relating to deposit reporting and the calculation and maintenance of required reserves, clarify the definitions of “time deposit” and “vault cash,” and make other minor editorial changes.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1307, by any of the following methods: • Agency Web Site: *http://www.federalreserve.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. * • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.* Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • FAX:
(202)452-3819 or
(202)452-3102. • Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heatherun Sophia Allison, Senior Counsel (202/452-3565), or Kara Handzlik, Attorney (202/452-3852), Legal Division, Seth Carpenter, Assistant Director and Section Chief (202/452-2385), or Margaret Gillis DeBoer, Financial Analyst (202/452-3139), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD)only, contact (202/263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Background Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (the “Act”) imposes reserve requirements for monetary policy purposes only on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Section 19 also authorizes the Board to define by regulation the terms used in the section. Currently, reserve requirement ratios for “transaction accounts” (accounts used to make payments to third parties, such as checking accounts) are graduated between three and ten percent. Reserve requirement ratios for “nonpersonal time deposits” and “Eurocurrency liabilities” are currently zero percent. Although Section 19 expressly defines accounts with certain transfer characteristics as “transaction accounts,” Section 19 also authorizes the Board “to determine, by regulation or order, that an account or deposit is a transaction account if such account or deposit may be used to provide funds directly or indirectly for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third persons or others.” 1 The provisions of Section 19 are implemented by the Board's Regulation D. 1 Section 19(b)(1)(F) of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)(F). Section 11(a)(2) of the Act authorizes the Board to require any depository institution “to make, at such intervals as the Board may prescribe, such reports of its liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable the Board to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates.” 2 These provisions are specifically implemented in the computation and maintenance provisions of Regulation D (12 CFR 204.3). 2 12 U.S.C. 248(a). II. Pass-Through Accounts Section 19(c)(1) of the Act provides that depository institutions shall maintain required reserves in the form of a balance maintained for such purposes by a depository institution in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank or in the form of vault cash. Prior to 2006, Section 19(c)(1)(B) of the Act provided that non-member banks could maintain required reserves in an account at a depository institution that itself maintained required reserve balances at a Federal Reserve Bank, known as a “pass-through account.” The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, Public Law 109-351 (Oct. 13, 2006), amended Section 19(c)(1)(B) of the Act to remove the language restricting pass-through arrangements to non-member banks. Accordingly, all depository institutions may if they choose maintain required reserves in a pass-through account with a correspondent depository institution. To implement the pass-through provisions of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, the Board proposes to amend the definition of “pass-through account” in § 204.2( *l* ) and the rules for pass-through arrangements in § 204.3(i) to remove references limiting such arrangements to non-member banks. III. Transfers From Savings Deposits A. Six-Three Distinction The Board has established the criteria for distinguishing between “transaction accounts” and “savings deposits” 3 in Regulation D based on the ease with which the depositor may make transfers (payments to third parties) or withdrawals (payments directly to the depositor) from the account. Generally speaking, the more convenient it is to make withdrawals or transfers from an account, the more likely it is that the account will be used for making payments or transfers to third parties as opposed to holding savings. Accordingly, Regulation D limits the number of certain convenient kinds of transfers or withdrawals that may be made in a single month from an account if that account is to be classified as a “savings deposit.” 4 “Convenient” transfers or withdrawals for this purpose include preauthorized or automatic transfers (such as overdraft protection transfers or arranging to have bill payments deducted directly from the depositor's savings account), telephonic transfers (made by the depositor telephoning or sending a fax or online instruction to the bank and instructing the transfer to be made), and transfers by check, debit card, or similar order payable to third parties. 3 The Board has by regulation included “savings deposits” held by nonnatural persons ( *i.e.* , anyone other than individuals) in the Regulation D definition of “nonpersonal time deposits.” Accordingly, such deposits are subject to a zero percent reserve requirement. Savings deposits held by natural persons (individuals), on the other hand, are not subject to reserve requirements at all. As a practical matter, therefore, “savings deposits” of all kinds are not reservable; the distinction between personal and nonpersonal savings deposits is significant for deposit reporting purposes only. 4 12 CFR 204.2(d)(2) (definition of “savings deposit”). Regulation D currently limits the number of “convenient” transfers and withdrawals from savings deposits ( *i.e.* , preauthorized, automatic, or telephonic transfers or withdrawals) to not more than six per month. Within this overall limit of six, not more than three transfers or withdrawals may be made by check, debit card, or similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Transfers and withdrawals from savings deposits that are less convenient are not limited in number by the “savings deposit” definition in Regulation D. For example, transfers or withdrawals made “by mail, messenger, automated teller machine, or in person or * * * made by telephone (via check mailed to the depositor)” may be made from savings deposits without numerical limit. The distinction between different types of limited transfers or withdrawals from savings deposits may be referred to as the “six-three distinction” ( *i.e.* , six convenient transfers or withdrawals, of which up to three may be by check, debit card, or similar order). The six-three distinction in the Regulation D definition of “savings deposit” is derived from the “money market deposit account” or “MMDA” created by the Garn-St.Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (the “1982 Act”). In the 1982 Act, Congress sought to create an account to meet the perceived market need for an interest-bearing deposit account that was both directly competitive with money market mutual funds and not the functional equivalent of a reservable transaction account. The definition of “transaction account” in Regulation D at that time included any account from which more than three preauthorized, automatic or telephonic transfers or withdrawals per month were permitted. Congress therefore specified in the 1982 Act that the MMDA was not to be considered a “transaction account” (and, therefore, not subject to reserve requirements) even though it permitted “three preauthorized or automatic transfers and three third-party transfers” per month. The legislative history of the 1982 Act did not clarify whether this authorization was intended to allow “three preauthorized or automatic transfers” and a separate set of “three third-party transfers.” It simply noted that “third-party transfers” were intended to include checks. The existing provisions of Regulation D, however, considered “preauthorized or automatic” transfers to include transfers to third parties as well. To harmonize the legislative history of the 1982 Act with the existing provisions of Regulation D, the MMDA was regulatorily defined to permit a depositor who did not write any checks in a particular month to make up to six preauthorized or automatic transfers per month. In no event, however, would more than three checks per month be permitted. In 1986, the statutory provisions that authorized the MMDA and that exempted the MMDA from the “transaction account” definition expired. In subsequent rulemakings, however, the Board preserved the transfer and withdrawal characteristics of the MMDA in Regulation D by merging the definition of “MMDA” into the definition of “savings deposit.” Thus, any deposit that permitted up to six preauthorized, automatic, or telephonic transfers or withdrawals, including not more than three transfers made by check, debit card, or similar third-party order, was classified under Regulation D as a “savings deposit.” B. Proposed Amendment Eliminating “Three” Limit Depository institutions have identified the six-three distinction in Regulation D as a regulatory burden in various contexts, as distinctions that have historically been drawn between “six” or “three” transfers or withdrawals are overtaken by developments in payments technology. In light of the foregoing, the Board believes it would now be appropriate to amend Regulation D to do away with the sublimit of three that applies to checks and drafts and simply limit all “convenient” transfers to not more than six per month. 5 Eliminating the “six-three distinction” and replacing it with a simpler “six-per-month” rule for all types of “convenient” transfers or withdrawals from savings deposits would reduce some aspects of the current limitations that are burdensome to the private sector and that may interfere with the broader use and acceptance of developing electronic payments technologies. 5 12 CFR 204.2(d)(2) (definition of “savings deposit”). A “six-per-month” rule could result in a slight decrease in aggregate transaction account balances, as those accounts that permit more than three but less than six transfers by check or debit card per month would shift from their current classification as “transaction accounts” to “savings deposits.” The extent of such a decrease, if any, is difficult to predict given the lack of data on the distribution of frequency of withdrawals and transfers from various accounts. The net effects, however, seem unlikely to be large. IV. Other Proposed Amendments A. Harmonization With Existing Usage or Staff Guidance Certain proposed amendments would amend definitions of existing terms to harmonize them with existing usage, practice, or staff guidance. For example, the proposed amendments would add new provisions to the definition of “vault cash” in § 204.2(k) in order to incorporate the substance of numerous staff opinions that explain the circumstances under which vault cash held at ATMs and in other arrangements can qualify as “vault cash” for purposes of meeting reserve requirements. Also, the proposed amendments would also clarify the definition of “time deposit” in § 204.2(c) to incorporate staff guidance that has been issued over the years in response to numerous inquiries about the meaning of “additional” early withdrawal penalties and when such penalties must be imposed. B. Reorganization of Reporting, Computation, and Maintenance Provisions The remaining proposed amendments would reorganize the existing provisions of Regulation D relating to deposit reporting and to the computation and maintenance of required reserves. These proposed amendments would split the existing provisions on these subjects in current § 204.3 into three separate sections. First, the provisions related to submitting reports of deposits would be set forth in proposed § 204.3. Second, the provisions relating to computation of required reserves would be set forth in proposed § 204.4. Third, the provisions relating to maintenance of required reserves would be set forth in proposed § 204.5. In addition, the proposed amendments would move the reserve requirement ratio provisions of current § 204.9 into the proposed separate section relating to computation of required reserves (proposed § 204.4). Finally, the proposed amendments re-number the provisions of the regulation relating to transitional adjustments, emergency reserves, and supplemental reserves in order to reflect the creation of three separate sections out of current § 204.3. V. Section-By-Section Analysis Section 204.2(c)(1) Definition of “Time Deposit” The Board proposes to amend the definition of “time deposit” to clarify the application of early withdrawal penalties when there has been more than one partial early withdrawal from a time deposit. Current § 204.2(c)(1) provides that an early withdrawal penalty must be charged on any amount withdrawn from a time deposit “from within six days after the date of deposit.” The definition contemplates that an early withdrawal might be an early withdrawal of the entire deposit amount or of a partial withdrawal, that is, a withdrawal of some amount that is not the entire deposit amount. In either case, if part or all of the time deposit is withdrawn within six days after the date of the initial deposit, the specified early withdrawal penalty must be imposed on the amount so withdrawn. The current definition further states that “[a] time deposit from which partial early withdrawals are permitted must impose additional early withdrawal penalties of at least seven days' simple interest on amounts withdrawn within six days after each partial withdrawal.” This provision has led to numerous inquiries about the meaning of the terms “additional” and “early” in this provision. 6 The Board intends to clarify that withdrawals cannot be made more frequently than every seven days from a deposit that is classified as a “time deposit” unless a penalty of at least seven days” simple interest is charged on amounts so withdrawn. Accordingly, the Board proposes to amend the definition to remove the references to “early” and “additional” in the second sentence of the definition and to clarify that “early” withdrawals, when made other than in the first six days, are withdrawals that are within six days of the last withdrawal. 6 *E.g.,* whether two penalties (an “early withdrawal penalty” and an “additional early withdrawal penalty”) must be charged on any partial early withdrawal; whether one penalty must be charged on a partial early withdrawal within the first six days of the deposit but two must be charged on subsequent partial early withdrawals; the meaning of “early withdrawal” as applied to a partial withdrawal made some time other than within the first six days, etc. Section 204.2(d)(2) Definition of “Savings Deposit” As explained in III.A.-III.B., *supra,* The Board proposes to amend the definition of “savings deposit” to eliminate the provision limiting certain kinds of transfers from savings deposits to not more than three per month. As a result, all kinds of transfers and withdrawals from a savings deposit that must be limited in number per month would be subject to the same numeric limitation of nor more than six per month. Section 204.2(k) Definition of “Vault Cash” The Board proposes to amend the definition of “vault cash” to incorporate the substance of prior written staff guidance on when currency and coin that is not held at a physical location of the depository institution 7 may count as “vault cash.” The proposed amendments divide the definition of “vault cash” into two subsections: one dealing with vault cash “held at a physical location of the depository institution * * * from which the institution's depositors may make cash withdrawals;” and the other dealing with vault cash “held at an alternate physical location.” The proposed amendments expand primarily the second proposed subsection to incorporate prior guidance. 7 *See, e.g.* , See FRRS ¶ 2-307.2 (rented vault); Staff Opinion of Aug. 9, 1982 (ATMs). From 1917 to 1959, the Act permitted member banks to satisfy reserve requirements exclusively with balances in their accounts at Federal Reserve Banks. In 1959, Congress amended Section 19 of the Act to provide that the Board, “under such regulations as it may prescribe, may permit member banks to count all or part of their currency and coin as reserves required under this section.” 8 The 1959 legislation was intended “to remove some generally recognized inequities that now exist in the structure of reserve requirements applicable to member banks * * *.” 9 Specifically, the legislative history recognized that currency and coin in a member bank's vault and a balance in a member bank's account at a Federal Reserve Bank were “interchangeable” as liabilities of the Reserve Banks. 10 For operational reasons, however, “country banks” generally found it necessary to hold more currency and coin in their vaults than did “reserve city banks” or “central reserve city banks.” 11 Between 1959 and 1960, the Board promulgated a series of amendments to Regulation D that phased in the ability of member banks to count all of their currency and coin in satisfying reserve requirements. 8 Act of July 28, 1959 (73 Stat. 263). 9 S. Rep. No. 86-195, at 1 (1959); H. Rep. No. 86-403, at 3 (1959). 10 S. Rep. No. 86-195, at 3 (1959); H. Rep. No. 86-403, at 3 (1959). 11 S. Rep. No. 86-195, at 3 (1959); H. Rep. No. 86-403, at 3 (1959). In 1970, the Board issued an interpretation of Regulation D relating to the eligibility of currency or coin held principally for numismatic value to satisfy member bank reserve requirements. 12 The Board was concerned that permitting silver coin to count towards reserve requirements could encourage speculation in silver; specifically, that the banks were holding either for their own accounts with the expectation of earning a premium over face value, or were holding under written or oral agreements with specific customers whereby the customers retained the right to or an option on those coins. 13 Accordingly, the Board specified in the 1970 interpretation that in order for a member bank to count currency or coin towards reserve requirements, the member bank must have “the full and unrestricted right to use [such currency or coin] at any time to meet depositors' claims * * *.” 14 The 1970 interpretation also specified that a bank does not have such a “full and unrestricted right” if the bank is prevented, legally or practically * * * from using the currency or coin at any time to meet customer's demands.” 15 The 1970 interpretation further specified that when assessing arrangements with respect to such currency and coin, “[a]n agreement between the bank and its customer that the currency or coin is to be regarded as ‘owned’ by the bank for purposes of reserve requirements is not determinative. Whether currency or coin may be counted as reserves depends on the underlying nature of the transaction * * *.” 16 12 Former 12 CFR 204.116 (1979). 13 35 FR 18957 (Dec. 15, 1970). 14 *Id.* 15 *Id.* 16 *Id.* The 1980 Regulation D amendments implementing the Monetary Control Act of 1980 introduced the term “vault cash” as a defined term. The 1980 amendments defined “vault cash” to mean “currency and coin owned and held by a depository institution that may, at any time, be used to satisfy depositors' claims,” incorporating into the new definition the principles of bank ownership and availability at any time to satisfy depositors' claims from the 1970 interpretation. Subsequent Board guidance and staff opinions provided additional clarification of these requirements. For example, vault cash “owned and held” by the depository institution was further clarified to include the requirements that
(A)the depository institution claiming the currency or coin in question as “vault cash” must book the currency or coin as an asset, 17 and that
(B)no other institution may claim the currency and coin towards satisfying its reserve requirements. 18 The ability to use vault cash “at any time * * * to satisfy depositor's claims” was initially viewed as requiring the currency or coin to be “immediately” available for that purpose to the bank or a branch of the bank. 19 For currency and coin to be “immediately available,” subsequent staff opinions specified that it be “reasonably nearby” a physical location (from which depositors may make cash withdrawals) of the institution claiming the vault cash towards satisfying reserve requirements. 20 To be “reasonably nearby,” in turn, staff believed that a depository institution customer who demanded cash at the beginning of a banking day should be able to receive that cash in satisfaction of his or her demand before the close of business on the same calendar day. Accordingly, staff opined that a depository institution must be able to recall the currency and coin in question from the remote location by not later than 4 p.m. if the recall is requested by 10 a.m. on the same calendar day for the currency and coin to constitute “vault cash.” Staff guidance further clarified that depository institutions must establish the ability to recall “vault cash” within the specified time frame by having in place a written cash delivery plan (together with written contractual arrangements necessary to implement the plan) that permits recall of the “vault cash” to the depository institution relying solely on ground transportation. 17 *See,* *e.g.* , F.R.R.S. ¶ 2-306.9; Staff Op. of Aug. 9, 1982. 18 *See,* *e.g.* , F.R.R.S. ¶ 2-307.2; Staff Op. of Aug. 9, 1982. 19 *See* FRRS ¶ 2-306.9; Staff Opinion of Aug. 9, 1982. 20 *See* FRRS ¶ 2-307.2. The proposed amendments would incorporate all of the foregoing clarifications and requirements into six new subsections applicable to “vault cash” held “at an alternate physical location” of the depository institution claiming the currency or coin in question towards satisfying its reserve requirements. 21 Finally, the proposed amendments re-number current § 204.2(k)(2)-(3) to 204.2(k)(3)-(4), to take into account the new proposed §§ 204.2(k)(1)-(2). The substance of those provisions, however, is unchanged by the proposed amendments. 21 The proposed amendments do not include the “legitimate business purpose” specification from written staff guidance on vault cash held in alternate physical locations ( *see,* *e.g.* , FRRS ¶ 2-365.2), The Board believes that full compliance with the other five specifications proposed to be incorporated into the definition should ordinarily suffice to establish the legitimacy of the arrangement. The Board requests comment on whether this specification should be included in the definition of “vault cash.” Section 204.2(l) Definition of “Pass-through Account” The Board proposes to amend the definition of “pass-through account” to eliminate the language restricting pass-through account arrangements to non-member banks. The proposed amendments would also move the provisions relating to pass-through accounts currently set forth in § 204.3(i) to a new § 204.5(d), “Maintenance of Required Reserves,” discussed *infra.* Section 204.2(v) Definition of “Clearing Balance Allowance” The proposed amendments would add a new definition of “clearing balance allowance” to Regulation D. The term replaces the undefined term “required charge-free band” that appears twice in current § 204.3(h) (concerning carryovers of excess reserves or deficiencies in reserves) because that term is no longer used in current practice. The proposed amendments would also move the existing carryover provisions in current § 204.3(h) to a new paragraph
(e)under proposed § 204.5, “Maintenance of Required Reserves,” discussed *infra.* Section 204.2(w) Definition of “Contractual Clearing Balance” The proposed amendments would add a new definition of “contractual clearing balance” to Regulation D. The term replaces the undefined term “required clearing balance” in current § 204.3(h) because the term “contractual clearing balance” is more commonly used and more accurately describes the relationship created thereby. Section 204.3 Reporting and Location Current § 204.3 of Regulation D sets forth the regulatory provisions governing the calculation of required reserves, the maintenance of required reserves, and the submission of reports of deposits (from which required reserves are calculated). The Board proposes to re-organize these provisions into three separate subsections that address these issues in their chronological order: the submission of reports of deposits, the calculation of required reserves based on those reports of deposits, and the subsequent maintenance of required reserves based on the calculation of required reserves. The proposed amendments are not intended to make substantive changes to these provisions, but rather are intended to re-organize them for greater ease of reference and to make minor editorial changes for clarity. The first of the proposed three new paragraphs, proposed § 204.3, incorporates the existing regulatory provisions relating to submission of reports of deposits, including provisions on determining the location of the reporting institution for deposit reporting and reserves maintenance purposes. 22 The proposed amendments would also include in this paragraph regulatory provisions regarding the allocation of the low reserve tranche among related depository institutions 23 and regarding overdrafts in related transaction accounts 24 because these provisions must be applied in determining the appropriate levels of deposits to report. 22 Current subsections 204.3(a)(1) last sentence, 204.3(a)(2), and 204.3(b)(2). 23 Current § 204.3(a)(3). 24 Current § 204.3(e). Proposed § 204.3(a) consists of the text of the first sentence of current § 204.3(a)(2)(i), with two proposed amendments. The first proposed amendment would clarify the authority of the Board or a Federal Reserve Bank to require reports of deposits or any other form or statement from a depository institution relating to reserve requirements. The second proposed amendment would clarify where reports of deposits are to be submitted in light of the account location provisions of the regulation. Proposed § 204.3(b) sets forth without change the text of the second sentence of current § 204.3(a)(2)(i). Proposed § 204.3(c) sets forth without change the text of the third (and last) sentence of current § 204.3(a)(1). Proposed § 204.3(d) sets forth, with one change, the text of current § 204.3(a)(3). The one change would conform the section number reference to the reserve requirement ratios that are currently set forth in § 204.9 but would be moved to proposed § 204.4(f) in the proposed amendments. No changes are proposed to current § 204.3(e), dealing with computation of transaction accounts for deposit reporting purposes. Proposed § 204.3(g) sets forth, with two amendments, the text of current § 204.3(b)(2). The first amendment would provide that a depository institution may be considered to be located at the location specified in the institution's articles of incorporation or as specified by the institution's primary regulator. The Board proposes this amendment in light of the fact that an institution may move its head office or primary location from that specified in its charter or organizing certificate, but that the charter or organizing certificate may not reflect that move. In such cases, the move instead may be reflected in the institution's revised articles of incorporation or otherwise as recognized by the institution's primary regulator. The second amendment would conform the internal references to §§ 204.3(b)(2)(i) and 204.3(b)(2)(ii) to §§ 204.3(g)(1) and 204.3(g)(2), respectively. Section 204.4 Computation of Required Reserves The Board proposes to move the provisions relating to computation of required reserves from where they appear in current §§ 204.3(c), 204.3(d), and 204.3(f) to a new separate paragraph, proposed § 204.4, “Computation of Required Reserves.” No substantive changes are intended. Proposed § 204.4(a) sets forth, without change, the text of current § 204.3(f)(1). Proposed § 204.4(b) sets forth, without change, the text of current § 204.3(f)(2). Proposed § 204.4(c) sets forth, without change, the text of current § 204.3(f)(3). Proposed §§ 204.4(d) and 204.4(e) set forth the text of current § 204.3(c)(1) and the first sentence of § 204.3, respectively, with editorial amendments for clarity. Proposed § 204.4(f) sets forth the text of the second sentence of current § 204.3(c)(1), with editorial amendments for clarity. Proposed § 204.4(f) also incorporates, with editorial amendments for clarity, the table of reserve requirements ratios currently set forth in § 204.9 so that all regulatory provisions relating to computation of required reserves are located in the same section. Section 204.5 Maintenance of Required Reserves The Board proposes to move the existing provisions regarding maintenance of required reserves, including the provisions on maintenance of required reserves pursuant to pass-through agreements, to a new § 204.5, “Maintenance of Required Reserves.” No substantive changes are intended. Proposed § 204.5(a)(1) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(b)(1) with various amendments. First, the amendments would delete the reference to “non-member institutions” in discussing pass-through arrangements. Second, the amendments would update the language ( *e.g.* , “maintain required reserves” rather than “hold reserves”) for consistency with current usage. Third, the amendments would conform the numeric reference from current § 204.3(i) to proposed § 204.5(d) for the regulatory provisions on pass-through arrangements. Proposed § 204.5(a)(2) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(i)(3)(i) with editorial amendments for clarity. Proposed § 204.5(b)(1) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(c)(2) with editorial amendments for clarity. Proposed § 204.5(b)(2) sets forth the text of the first and third sentences of current § 204.3(d) with editorial amendments for clarity. Proposed § 204.5(c) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(g) with an amendment to conform the name of the Board's Regulation J (12 CFR Part 210) to the current version of the regulation. Proposed § 204.5(d) sets forth the regulatory provisions for “pass-through accounts” in current § 204.3(i), dividing them into four new paragraphs, proposed §§ 204.5(d)(1) through 204.5(d)(4). Proposed § 204.5(d)(1) sets forth the text from current § 204.3(i)(1)(i) with various amendments. First, the amendments would delete the reference to “nonmember” depository institutions, since pass-through arrangements are no longer statutorily restricted to nonmember depository institutions. Second, the amendments would clarify that depository institutions whose required reserve balances are zero may serve as pass-through correspondents. Third, the amendments conform the internal references to section numbers and make other editorial changes for clarity. Proposed § 204.5(d)(2) sets forth, without change, the text from current § 204.3(i)(1)(ii). Proposed § 204.5(d)(3) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(i)(2), with an amendment to delete the obsolete reference to Reserve Bank permission for alternate account locations. Determination of account location is addressed in current § 204.3(b) (proposed § 204.3(g)). Proposed § 204.5(d)(4) sets forth, in four new subsections, the text of current §§ 204.3(i)(3)(ii)-(v). Proposed § 204.5(d)(4)(A) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(i)(3)(ii) with an amendment deleting the reference to more than one depository institution account at a Federal Reserve Bank. Proposed §§ 204.5(d)(4)(B) and 204.5(d)(4)(C) set forth, without change, the text of current §§ 204.3(i)(3)(iii) and 204.3(i)(3)(iv), respectively. Proposed § 204.5(d)(4)(D) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(i)(3)(v) with an amendment conforming the section number reference to the supplemental reserves provisions of the regulation (current § 204.6, proposed § 204.10). Proposed § 204.5(e) sets forth the text of current § 204.3(h), with amendments deleting obsolete references to “required clearing balance” and to “required charge-free band.” Other editorial amendments are made for clarity. Section 204.6 Charges for Reserve Deficiencies The Board proposes to move the existing provisions regarding charges for reserve deficiencies from current § 204.7 to proposed § 204.6 and to revise the current caption of the section (from “Penalties” to “Charges for Reserve Deficiencies”). The four proposed sections in proposed § 204.6 set forth the text of current § 204.7, deleting provisions describing guidelines for waivers by Reserve Banks of small charges. The Board believes that the deletion of this material is appropriate because it describes only in part the extent of the discretion of the Reserve Banks in this regard and to avoid the implication that Reserve Banks must waive charges in certain of the cases described. Section 204.7 Transitional Adjustments in Mergers The Board proposes to re-designate the provision from current § 204.4 to proposed § 204.7. No other changes to the section are proposed. Section 204.8 International Banking Facilities No changes are proposed to § 204.8. Section 204.9 Emergency Reserve Requirement The Board proposes to re-designate the provision from current § 204.5 to proposed § 204.9. No other changes to the section are proposed. Section 204.10 Supplemental Reserve Requirement The Board proposes to re-designate the provision from current § 204.6 to proposed § 204.10. No other changes to the section are proposed. Regulation I Section 209.2(c)(1) Location of Bank—General Rule The Board proposes to amend this provision of Regulation I to conform it to the proposed § 204.3(g) of Regulation D, discussed *supra* . Specifically, the amendment would provide that a depository institution may be considered to be located at the location specified in the institution's articles of incorporation or as specified by the institution's primary regulator. The Board proposes this amendment in light of the fact that an institution may move its head office or primary location from that specified in its charter or organizing certificate, but that the charter or organizing certificate may not reflect that move. In such cases, the move instead may be reflected in the institution's revised articles of incorporation or otherwise as recognized by the institution's primary regulator. VI. Form of Comment Letters Comment letters should refer to Docket No. R-__ and, when possible, should use a standard typeface with a font size of 10 or 12; this will enable the Board to convert text submitted in paper form to machine-readable form through electronic scanning, and will facilitate automated retrieval of comments for review. Comments may be mailed electronically to *regs.comments@federalreserve.gov* . VII. Solicitation of Comments Regarding Use of “Plain Language” Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Board to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites comments on whether the proposed rule is clearly stated and effectively organized, and how the Board might make the proposed text easier to understand. VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis In accordance with Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ), the Board has reviewed the proposed amendments to Regulation D and Regulation I. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after consideration of comments received during the public comment period. 1. *Statement of the objectives of the proposal* . The Board is proposing to amend Regulation D and Regulation I in order to conform the regulation to the provisions of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, to modernize the regulation in light of technological developments, to reduce regulatory burden, and to simplify regulatory compliance. Section 19 of the Act was enacted to impose reserve requirements on certain deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions for monetary policy purposes. Section 19 also authorizes the Board to promulgate such regulations as it may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of the section. The Board believes that the proposed amendment to Regulation D is within the Congress' broad grant of authority to the Board to adopt provisions that carry out the purposes of Section 19 of the Act. 2. *Small entities affected by the proposal* . The proposal would affect all depository institutions that are currently subject to transaction account reserve requirements. The Board estimates that there are currently approximately 8,195 depository institutions that are subject to transaction account reserve requirements. The Board estimates that approximately 3,800 of these institutions could be considered small entities with assets of $165 million or less. The proposed rule, if adopted, may reduce the level of reservable transaction account balances for all depository institutions because “savings deposits” that previously permitted more than three but less than six “convenient” transfers would be classified as nonreservable “savings deposits” under the proposed rule, but are currently classified as reservable “transaction accounts.” 3. *Other federal rules* . The Board believes that no federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed revisions to the Interpretation. 4. *Significant alternatives to the proposed revisions* . The Board welcomes comment on any significant alternatives that would minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. IX. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA. Test of Proposed Revisions Certain conventions have been used to highlight the proposed revisions. New language is shown inside arrows while language that would be deleted is set off with brackets. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Parts 204 and 209 Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 204 and 209 as follows: PART 204—RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D) 1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 461, 601, 611, and 3105. 2. Section 204.2 is amended by revising paragraphs I(1)(i) introductory text, (d)(2),
(k)and (l), and adding new paragraphs
(v)and
(w)to read as follows: § 204.2 Definitions.
(c)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)A deposit [that] ▸from which◂ the depositor does not have a right and is not permitted to make withdrawals [from] within six days after the date of deposit unless the deposit is subject to an early withdrawal penalty of at least seven days' simple interest on amounts withdrawn within the first six days after deposit. 1 A time deposit from which partial [early] withdrawals are permitted ▸within six days after the date of the last withdrawal◂ must impose [additional] early withdrawal penalties of at least seven days' simple interest on amounts ▸so◂ withdrawn [within six days after each partial withdrawal]. If [such additional] early withdrawal penalties are not imposed, the account ceases to be a time deposit. The account may become a savings deposit if it meets the requirements for a saving deposit; otherwise it becomes a transaction account. Time deposit includes funds— 1 A time deposit, or a portion thereof, may be paid during the period when an early withdrawal penalty would otherwise be required under this part without imposing an early withdrawal penalty specified by this part:
(a)Where the time deposit is maintained in an individual retirement account established in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 408 and is paid within seven days after establishment of the individual retirement account pursuant to 26 CFR 1.408-6(d)(4), where it is maintained in a Keogh (H.R. 10) plan, or where it is maintained in a *401(k) plan* under 26 U.S.C. 401(k); *Provided* that the depositor forfeits an amount at least equal to the simple interest earned on the amount withdrawn;
(b)Where the depository institution pays all or a portion of a time deposit representing funds contributed to an individual retirement account or a Keogh (H.R. 10) plan established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 408 or 26 U.S.C. 401 or to a *401(k) plan* established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 401(k) when the individual for whose benefit the account is maintained attains age 59 1/2 or is disabled (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 72(m)(7)) or thereafter;
(c)Where the depository institution pays that portion of a time deposit on which federal deposit insurance has been lost as a result of the merger of two or more federally insured banks in which the depositor previously maintained separate time deposits, for a period of one year from the date of the merger;
(d)Upon the death of any owner of the time deposit funds;
(e)When any owner of the time deposit is determined to be legally incompetent by a court or other administrative body of competent jurisdiction; or
(f)Where a time deposit is withdrawn within 10 days after a specified maturity date even though the deposit contract provided for automatic renewal at the maturity date.
(d)* * *
(2)The term savings deposit also means: A deposit or account, such as an account commonly known as a passbook savings account, a statement savings account, or as a money market deposit account (MMDA), that otherwise meets the requirements of § 204.2(d)(1) and from which, under the terms of the deposit contract or by practice of the depository institution, the depositor is permitted or authorized to make no more than six transfers and withdrawals, or a combination of such transfers and withdrawals, per calendar month or statement cycle (or similar period) of at least four weeks, to another account (including a transaction account) of the depositor at the same institution or to a third party by means of a preauthorized or automatic transfer, or telephonic (including data transmission) agreement, order or instruction, [and no more than three of the six such transfers may be made] ▸or◂ by check, draft, debit card, or similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. A preauthorized transfer includes any arrangement by the depository institution to pay a third party from the account of a depositor upon written or oral instruction (including an order received through an automated clearing house (ACH)) or any arrangement by a depository institution to pay a third party from the account of the depositor at a predetermined time or on a fixed schedule. Such an account is not a transaction account by virtue of an arrangement that permits transfers for the purpose of repaying loans and associated expenses at the same depository institution (as originator or servicer) or that permits transfers of funds from this account to another account of the same depositor at the same institution or permits withdrawals (payments directly to the depositor) from the account when such transfers or withdrawals are made by mail, messenger, automated teller machine, or in person or when such withdrawals are made by telephone (via check mailed to the depositor) regardless of the number of such transfers or withdrawals. 4 4 In order to ensure that no more than the permitted number of withdrawals or transfers are made, for an account to come within the [definitions in paragraph (d)(2) of this section,] ▸definition of “savings deposit,”◂ a depository institution must either:
(a)Prevent withdrawals or transfers of funds from this account that are in excess of the limits established by paragraph (d)(2) of this section, or
(b)Adopt procedures to monitor those transfers on an ex post basis and contact customers who exceed the established limits on more than occasional basis. For customers who continue to violate those limits after they have been contacted by the depository institution, the depository institution must either close the account and place the funds in another account that the depositor is eligible to maintain or take away the transfer and draft capacities of the account. An account that authorizes withdrawals or transfers in excess of the permitted number is a transaction account regardless of whether the authorized number of transactions are actually made. For accounts described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the institution at its option may use, on a consistent basis, either the date on the check, draft, or similar item, or the date the item is paid in applying the limits imposed by that section. (k)(1) *Vault cash* means United States currency and coin owned and [held] ▸booked as an asset◂ by a depository institution that may, at any time, be used to satisfy [depositors'] claims ▸of that depository institution's depositors and that meets the requirements of paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this section◂.
(2)*Vault cash* ▸must be either:
(i)Held at a physical location of the depository institution (including the depository institution's proprietary ATMs) from which the institution's depositors may make cash withdrawals; or
(ii)Held at an alternate physical location if—
(A)The depository institution claiming the currency and coin as vault cash at all times retains full rights of ownership in and to the currency and coin held at the alternate physical location;
(B)The depository institution claiming the currency and coin as vault cash at all times books the currency and coin held at the alternate physical location as an asset of the depository institution;
(C)No other depository institution claims the currency and coin held at the alternate physical location as vault cash in satisfaction of that other depository institution's reserve requirements;
(D)The currency and coin held at the alternate physical location is reasonably nearby a location of the depository institution claiming the currency and coin as vault cash at which its depositors may make cash withdrawals (an alternate physical location is considered “reasonably nearby” if the depository institution that claims the currency and coin as vault cash can recall the currency and coin from the alternate physical location by 10 a.m. and, relying solely on ground transportation, receive the currency and coin not later than 4 p.m. on the same calendar day at a location of the depository institution at which its depositors may make cash withdrawals); and
(E)The depository institution claiming the currency and coin as vault cash has in place a written cash delivery plan, and written contractual arrangements necessary to implement that plan, that demonstrate that the currency and coin can be recalled and received in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(D) of this section at any time. The depository institution shall provide copies of the written cash delivery plan and written contractual arrangements to the Federal Reserve Bank that holds its account or to the Board upon request.
(3)Vault cash◂ includes United States currency and coin in transit to a Federal Reserve Bank or a correspondent depository institution for which the reporting depository institution has not yet received credit, and United States currency and coin in transit from a Federal Reserve Bank or a correspondent depository institution when the reporting depository institution's account at the Federal Reserve or correspondent bank has been charged for such shipment. [(3)] ▸(4)◂ Silver and gold coin and other currency and coin whose numismatic or bullion value is substantially in excess of face value is not vault cash for purposes of this part.
(l)*Pass-through account* means a balance maintained by a depository institution ▸with a correspondent institution under § 204.5(d)◂ [a balance maintained by a depository institution that is not a member bank, by a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, or by an Edge or Agreement Corporation,
(1)in an institution that maintains required reserve balances at a Federal Reserve Bank,
(2)in a Federal Home Loan Bank,
(3)in the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility, or
(4)in an institution that has been authorized by the Board to pass through required reserve balances if the institution, Federal Home Loan Bank, or National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility maintains the funds in the form of a balance in a Federal Reserve Bank of which it is a member or at which it maintains an account in accordance with rules and regulations of the Board]. ▸(v) Clearing balance allowance means the greater of $25,000 or two percent of an institution's contractual clearing balance.
(w)Contractual clearing balance means an amount that a depository institution agrees or is required to maintain in its account at a Federal Reserve Bank in addition to balances the depository institution may hold to satisfy its required reserve balance. A depository institution that has a required reserve balance of zero may still hold a contractual clearing balance.◂ 3. Amend § 204.3 by revising the heading and paragraphs
(a)through (d), (f), and
(g)to read as follows: § 204.3 Reporting and location.
(a)Every depository institution, U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and Edge or Agreement corporation shall file a report of deposits (or any other form or statement that may be required by the Board or by a Federal Reserve Bank) with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which it is located, regardless of the manner in which it chooses to maintain required reserve balances.
(b)A foreign bank's U.S. branches and agencies and an Edge or Agreement corporation's offices operating within the same state and the same Federal Reserve District shall prepare and file a report of deposits on an aggregated basis.
(c)For purposes of this part, the obligations of a majority-owned (50 percent or more) U.S. subsidiary (except an Edge or agreement corporation) of a depository institution shall be regarded as obligations of the parent depository institution.
(d)A depository institution, a foreign bank, or an Edge or Agreement corporation shall, if possible, assign the low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption prescribed in § 204.4(f) to only one office or to a group of offices filing a single aggregated report of deposits. The amount of the reserve requirement exemption allocated to an office or group of offices may not exceed the amount of the low reserve tranche allocated to such office or offices. If the low reserve tranche or reserve requirement exemption cannot be fully utilized by a single office or by a group of offices filing a single report of deposits, the unused portion of the tranche or exemption may be assigned to other offices or groups of offices of the same institution until the amount of the tranche (or net transaction accounts) or exemption (or reservable liabilities) is exhausted. The tranche or exemption may be reallocated each year concurrent with implementation of the indexed tranche and exemption, or, if necessary during the course of the year to avoid underutilization of the tranche or exemption, at the beginning of a reserve computation period.◂ ▸(f) The Board and the Federal Reserve Banks will not hold a pass-through correspondent responsible for guaranteeing the accuracy of the reports of deposits submitted by its respondents. (g)(1) For purposes of this section, a depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, or an Edge or Agreement corporation is located in the Federal Reserve District that contains the location specified in the institution's charter, organizing certificate, license, or articles of incorporation, or as specified by the institution's primary regulator, or if no such location is specified, the location of its head office, unless otherwise determined by the Board under paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(2)If the location specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in the Board's judgment, is ambiguous, would impede the ability of the Board or the Federal Reserve Banks to perform their functions under the Federal Reserve Act, or would impede the ability of the institution to operate efficiently, the Board will determine the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, after consultation with the institution and the relevant Federal Reserve Banks. The relevant Federal Reserve Banks are the Federal Reserve Bank whose District contains the location specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and the Federal Reserve Bank in whose District the institution is proposed to be located. In making this determination, the Board will consider any applicable laws, the business needs of the institution, the location of the institution's head office, the locations where the institution performs its business, and the locations that would allow the institution, the Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks to perform their functions efficiently and effectively.◂ 4. Section 204.7 is removed, § 204.4 is redesignated as § 204.7, and a new § 204.4 is added to read as follows: § 204.4 Computation of required reserves.
(a)In determining the reserve balance required under this part, the amount of cash items in process of collection and balances subject to immediate withdrawal due from other depository institutions located in the United States (including such amounts due from United States branches and agencies of foreign banks and Edge and agreement corporations) may be deducted from the amount of gross transaction accounts. The amount that may be deducted may not exceed the amount of gross transaction accounts.
(b)United States branches and agencies of a foreign bank may not deduct balances due from another United States branch or agency of the same foreign bank, and United States offices of an Edge or Agreement Corporation may not deduct balances due from another United States office of the same Edge Corporation.
(c)Balances “due from other depository institutions” do not include balances due from Federal Reserve Banks, pass-through accounts, or balances (payable in dollars or otherwise) due from banking offices located outside the United States. An institution exercising fiduciary powers may not include in balances “due from other depository institutions” amounts of trust funds deposited with other banks and due to it as a trustee or other fiduciary.
(d)For institutions that file a report of deposits weekly, required reserves are computed on the basis of the institution's daily average balances of deposits and Eurocurrency liabilities during a 14-day computation period ending every second Monday.
(e)For institutions that file a report of deposits quarterly, required reserves are computed on the basis of the institution's daily average balances of deposits and Eurocurrency liabilities during the 7-day computation period that begins on the third Tuesday of March, June, September, and December.
(f)For all depository institutions, Edge and agreement corporations, and United States branches and agencies of foreign banks, required reserves are computed by applying the reserve requirement ratios below to net transaction accounts, nonpersonal time deposits, and Eurocurrency liabilities of the institution during the computation period. Reservable liability Reserve requirement ratio NET TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS: $0 to reserve requirement exemption amount ($9.3 million) 0 percent of amount. Over reserve requirement exemption amount ($9.3 million) and up to low reserve tranche ($43.9 million) 3 percent of amount. Over low reserve tranche ($43.9 million) $1,038,000 plus 10 percent of amount over $43.9 million. Nonpersonal time deposits 0 percent. Eurocurrency liabilities 0 percent. 5. Section 204.9 is removed, § 204.5 is redesignated as § 204.9, and a new § 204.5 is added to read as follows: § 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's required reserves, in the form of a balance maintained
(i)directly with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or
(ii)with a pass-through correspondent in accordance with § 204.5(d).
(2)Each individual institution subject to this part is responsible for satisfying its required reserve balance, if any, either directly with a Federal Reserve Bank or through a pass-through correspondent. (b)(1) For institutions that file a report of deposits weekly, the balances that are required to be maintained with the Federal Reserve shall be maintained during a 14-day maintenance period that begins on the third Thursday following the end of a given computation period.
(2)For institutions that file a report of deposits quarterly, the balances that are required to be maintained with the Federal Reserve shall be maintained during each of the 7-day maintenance periods during the interval that begins on the fourth Thursday following the end of the institution's computation period and ends on the fourth Wednesday after the close of the institution's next computation period.
(c)Cash items forwarded to a Federal Reserve Bank for collection and credit shall not be counted as part of the reserve balance to be carried with the Federal Reserve until the expiration of the time specified in the appropriate time schedule established under Regulation J, “Collection of Checks and Other Items by Federal Reserve Banks and Funds Transfers Through Fedwire” (12 CFR Part 210). If a depository institution draws against items before that time, the charge will be made to its account if the balance is sufficient to pay it; any resulting impairment of reserve balances will be subject to the penalties provided by law and to the reserve-deficiency charges provided by this part. However, the Federal Reserve Bank may, at its discretion, refuse to permit the withdrawal or other use of credit given in an account for any time for which the Federal Reserve Bank has not received payment in actually and finally collected funds. (d)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, or an Edge or Agreement corporation required to maintain reserve balances (“respondent”) may select only one pass-through correspondent institution to pass through its required reserve balances, unless otherwise permitted by Federal Reserve Bank in whose District the respondent is located. Eligible pass-through correspondent institutions are Federal Home Loan Banks, the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility, and depository institutions, U.S. branches or agencies of foreign banks, and Edge and Agreement corporations that maintain required reserve balances, which may be zero, at a Federal Reserve Bank. In addition, the Board reserves the right to permit other institutions, on a case-by-case basis, to serve as pass-through correspondents. The correspondent chosen must subsequently pass through the required reserve balances of its respondents directly to a Federal Reserve Bank. The correspondent placing funds with a Federal Reserve Bank on behalf of respondents will be responsible for account maintenance as described in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(2)Respondents or correspondents may institute, terminate, or change pass-through agreements for the maintenance of required reserve balances by providing all documentation required for the establishment of the new agreement or termination of the existing agreement to the Federal Reserve Banks involved within the time period provided for such a change by those Reserve Banks.
(3)A correspondent that passes through required reserve balances of respondents shall maintain such balances, along with the correspondent's own required reserve balances (if any), in a single commingled account at the Federal Reserve Bank in whose District the correspondent is located. The balances held by the correspondent in an account at a Reserve Bank are the property of the correspondent and represent a liability of the Reserve Bank solely to the correspondent, regardless of whether the funds represent the reserve balances of another institution that have been passed through the correspondent. (4)(i) A pass-through correspondent shall be responsible for assuring the maintenance of the appropriate aggregate level of its respondents' required reserve balances. A Federal Reserve Bank will compare the total reserve balance required to be maintained with the total actual reserve balance held in such account for purposes of determining required-reserve deficiencies, imposing or waiving charges for deficiencies in required reserves, and for other reserve maintenance purposes. A charge for a deficiency in the aggregate level of the required reserve balance will be imposed by the Reserve Bank on the correspondent maintaining the account.
(ii)Each correspondent is required to maintain detailed records for each of its respondents in a manner that permits Reserve Banks to determine whether the respondent has provided a sufficient required reserve balance to the correspondent. A correspondent passing through a respondent's required reserve balance shall maintain records and make such reports as the Board or Reserve Bank requires in order to ensure the correspondent's compliance with its responsibilities for the maintenance of a respondent's reserve balance. Such records shall be available to the Reserve Banks as required.
(iii)The Federal Reserve Bank may terminate any pass-through agreement under which the correspondent is deficient in its recordkeeping or other responsibilities.
(iv)Interest paid on supplemental reserves (if such reserves are required under § 204.10) held by a respondent will be credited to the account maintained by the correspondent.
(e)Any excess or deficiency in an institution's required reserve balance shall be carried over and applied against the balance maintained in the next maintenance period as specified in this paragraph. The amount of any such excess or deficiency that is carried over shall not exceed the greater of:
(1)The amount obtained by multiplying .04 times the sum of depository institution's required reserves and the depository institution's contractual clearing balance, if any, and then subtracting from this product the depository institution's clearing balance allowance, if any; or
(2)$50,000, minus the depository institution's clearing balance allowance, if any. Any carryover not offset during the next period may not be carried over to subsequent periods.▸ 6. Section 204.6 is redesignated as § 204.10, and a new § 204.6 is added to read as follows: ▸§ 204.6 Charges for reserve deficiencies.
(a)Deficiencies in a depository institution's required reserve balance, after application of the carryover provided in § 204.5(e) are subject reserve-deficiency charges. Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to assess charges for deficiencies in required reserves at a rate of 1 percentage point per year above the primary credit rate, as provided in § 201.51(a) of this chapter, in effect for borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank on the first day of the calendar month in which the deficiencies occurred.—Charges shall be assessed on the basis of daily average deficiencies during each maintenance period. Reserve Banks may, as an alternative to levying monetary charges, after consideration of the circumstances involved, permit a depository institution to eliminate deficiencies in its required reserve balance by maintaining additional reserves during subsequent reserve maintenance periods.
(b)Reserve Banks may waive the charges for reserve deficiencies except when the deficiency arises out of a depository institution's gross negligence or conduct that is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of reserve requirements. If a depository institution has demonstrated a lack of due regard for the proper maintenance of required reserves, the Reserve Bank may decline to exercise the waiver privilege and assess all charges regardless of amount or reason for the deficiency.
(c)In individual cases, where a federal supervisory authority waives a liquidity requirement, or waives the penalty for failing to satisfy a liquidity requirement, the Reserve Bank in the District where the involved depository institution is located shall waive the reserve requirement imposed under this part for such depository institution when requested by the federal supervisory authority involved.
(d)Violations of this part may be subject to assessment of civil money penalties by the Board under authority of Section 19(1) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 505) as implemented in 12 CFR part 263. In addition, the Board and any other Federal financial institution supervisory authority may enforce this part with respect to depository institutions subject to their jurisdiction under authority conferred by law to undertake cease and desist proceedings.◂ PART 209—ISSUE AND CANCELLATION OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CAPITAL STOCK (REGULATION I) 7. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 2222, 248, 282, 286-288, 321, 323, 327-328, 333, and 466. 8. Section 209.2 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 209.2 Banks desiring to become member banks.
(c)* * *
(1)*General rule.* For purposes of this part, a national bank or a state bank is located in the Federal Reserve District that contains the location specified in the bank's charter or organizing certificate, ▸or as specified by the institution's primary regulator,◂ or if no such location is specified, the location of its head office, unless otherwise determined by the Board under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 7, 2008. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-2558 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0185; FRL-8528-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Incorporation of On-Board Diagnostic Testing and Other Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program for the Northern Virginia Program Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve three State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions pertain to the Commonwealth's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for the Northern Virginia area, which had previously been SIP-approved by EPA. These revisions incorporate several changes made by the Commonwealth since EPA last approved the I/M program as part of the SIP in 2002. The most significant change to the program is the incorporation of on-board diagnostic computer checks of 1996 and newer model year vehicles as an element of the emission inspection process for the Northern Virginia program area. In addition, Virginia has also made numerous minor changes to the program, including several changes to test procedures and standards, as well as changes to its roadside testing regimen. The I/M program helps to ensure that highway motor vehicles operate as cleanly as possible, by requiring vehicles to be periodically tested and by identifying vehicles having high emissions due to malfunctioning emission control systems. Such vehicles must then be repaired and retested by their owners, to the standards set by the Commonwealth's program. Vehicle I/M programs address nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compound emissions, both of which are precursors to formation of ground level ozone pollution, as well as the pollutant carbon monoxide. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0185 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0185, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0185. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,
(215)814-2176, or by e-mail at *rehn.brian@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? II. Background III. Summary of the Commonwealth's SIP Revisions IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? On December 18, 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia formally submitted a revision to its prior approved enhanced I/M program SIP for the Northern Virginia inspection and maintenance program. On April 2, 2003, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) submitted a SIP technical amendment to the December 18, 2002 SIP revision. On June 18, 2007, VA DEQ submitted another SIP revision, which contained updated I/M program regulations made since the time of the last SIP submittal. The Northern Virginia I/M program area is comprised of the following localities: the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford; and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park. It is designated by EPA as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Commonwealth's revised program satisfies federal requirements under sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act applicable to enhanced I/M programs, and EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the Commonwealth's revisions to the SIP approved I/M program. II. Background On December 18, 2002, the VA DEQ submitted a formal request to EPA to revise the Commonwealth's SIP in relation to its motor vehicle enhanced I/M program. The Commonwealth later submitted two other SIP revisions related to the enhanced I/M program—on April 2, 2003 and on June 18, 2007. These latest revisions serve to amend the Commonwealth's prior, EPA-approved enhanced I/M SIP, which was published as a final rulemaking action in the September 1, 1999 edition of the **Federal Register** (64 FR 47670). The Commonwealth's December 18, 2002 SIP revision consists of a revised emissions inspection program regulation published in the June 17, 2002 edition of the *Virginia Register of Regulations* (Volume 18, Issue 20), which amended a 1999 version of that regulation. Virginia's regulation, codified at Title 9, Chapter 91 of the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC), is entitled “Regulations for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia Area,” but is also referred to here as the Virginia I/M regulation. The Commonwealth amended its emissions inspection program regulations to reflect technical changes that Virginia DEQ deemed necessary for continued program operation since the inception of its enhanced emission inspection program. Some of these regulatory amendments were made by Virginia to reflect changing federal requirements and policies that apply to enhanced emission inspection programs, and some updates were to address changes made to relevant Virginia law since the inception of the enhanced I/M program. The most significant of the changes comprised within the December 18, 2002 SIP revision is the incorporation of on-board diagnostic checks of 1996 and newer vehicles subject to emissions testing. Virginia also updated its testing procedures to stay abreast of changes needed based upon past operation of the program, and modified applicability of the program to address the changing dynamic of the vehicle fleet operating in the program area. Finally, Virginia also amended its regulation to enhance the Commonwealth's ability to effectively enforce the emission inspection program. Virginia later submitted a SIP revision on April 2, 2003, which makes a technical correction to the emission inspection program regulation for Northern Virginia. This latter amendment corrects a technical error in Virginia's prior emission inspection program regulation concerning emission inspector identification numbers. Virginia's June 18, 2007 SIP revision contains newer regulatory amendments made by Virginia since the June 2002 version of the regulation contained in the December 18, 2002 SIP revision. The June 18, 2007 SIP revision revised provisions related to on-road testing of vehicles (i.e., remote sensing) operating primarily in Northern Virginia to ensure motorist compliance and to supplement State enforcement activities. EPA is taking a single rulemaking action today upon the December 18, 2002, the April 2, 2003, and the June 18, 2007 SIP revisions. III. Summary of the Commonwealth's SIP Revisions A. Virginia's December 18, 2002 SIP Revision In 2002, Virginia issued a final rule revising the inspection and maintenance of motor vehicles. This revised regulation was published in the June 17, 2002 edition of the *Virginia Register of Regulations* (Volume 18, Issue 20), and was submitted to EPA as part of the December 18, 2002 SIP revision. The program was revised to update the regulations to reflect changes made in the operation of emissions testing in Virginia since the last major update of the I/M regulation in 1999. The regulation was also changed to reflect changes in Federal requirements applicable to I/M programs since the enhanced I/M program was SIP-approved by EPA. The program was also amended to reflect changes in Virginia law relevant to the I/M program since the inception of the enhanced I/M program. Among the most significant of the Commonwealth's regulatory amendments was the incorporation and implementation of on-board diagnostic testing as a mandatory testing element for 1996 and newer vehicles equipped with second generation on-board diagnostics systems. Other June 2002 State I/M regulatory amendments reflect changes in the way the program was being operated since the regulations had previously been amended in 1999. As was stated earlier, Virginia incorporated regulatory updates to reflect changes in Federal and State law relevant to the I/M program. Finally, some changes were made to improve the Commonwealth's ability to oversee the program and to aid in enforcement of the program. Virginia submitted its revised regulation as a formal SIP revision to EPA on December 18, 2002, with a technical correction amendment submitted on April 2, 2003. Below is a summary of the most significant changes to the Commonwealth's vehicle emission inspection program regulations submitted as part of the December 18, 2002 SIP revision: 1. Incorporates on-board diagnostic testing for OBD-II compliant vehicles and subjects OBD-II equipped 1997 and newer diesel-powered vehicles to the program for the first time. 2. Program coverage revised to exempt vehicles 25 years old and older at the time of testing, in lieu of the previous exemption of 1968 and older model vehicles. 3. Revision of acceleration-simulation mode
(ASM)emission standards and removal of ASM test procedure pre-screening requirements. 4. Tightening of two-speed idle emission test standards, to reflect advanced technology and related lower emission levels of 1990 and newer vehicles. 5. Relaxation of roadside remote sensing standards, and greater flexibility for VA DEQ in use of various pollutants as roadside screening criteria. 6. Repeal of requirement for evaporative system purge testing. 7. Revision of requirements for Federal and private fleet testing and reporting, and addition of “sensitive mission vehicle” fleet emission inspection station permit category. 8. Revision of visible emissions standard to include a standard for diesel-powered vehicles now subject to OBD testing. 9. Elimination of deadlines for waiver limit increases that have already passed; and requirement for vehicles that received a waiver in another State to be tested if subject to Virginia's I/M program. 10. Repeal of requirements limiting warranty eligibility for certain emissions short tests. 11. Modification of penalty schedule for major violations related to emissions inspections. 12. Revision of a number of definitions to reflect related regulatory changes, and repeal of others that are no longer needed to support the Commonwealth's regulations. A more detailed summary of each of these June 2002 regulatory changes is detailed below, with additional information provided in the technical support document prepared by EPA in support of this rulemaking action. 1. Addition of On-Board Diagnostics Inspections Subject 1996 and newer subject vehicles equipped with second generation on-board diagnostics systems (OBD-II) will receive electronic checks of their on-board diagnostics systems in lieu of other emissions tests. An OBD check consists of a visual check of the dashboard indicators and an electronic examination of the OBD computer for potential stored fault information. OBD-equipped 1997 and newer light duty diesel vehicles are also required to be OBD tested. Virginia's I/M regulation established a start date of October 2002 to commence mandatory OBD checks of gasoline-powered vehicles under its I/M program, with the option to delay testing if the VA DEQ determined its OBD test equipment was unavailable or not ready. After the occurrence of such an equipment-related delay, Virginia began mandatory OBD testing on gasoline-powered vehicles in November 2005. For the first time, Virginia's June 2002 regulation requires the addition of mandatory OBD checks for light duty diesel-powered vehicles, to begin no later than October 2006. However, in practice VA DEQ delayed diesel-powered OBD checks and instead began diesel OBD checks as part of the I/M program in May 2007 (for vehicles with registrations expiring July 2007). For most vehicles subject to OBD checks under Virginia's program, an OBD check will be performed in lieu of tailpipe testing (i.e., ASM or 2-speed idle tests). However, VA DEQ may also perform exhaust tests on a limited basis, in addition to an OBD check, for quality control or program evaluation purposes. Some vehicles that are known to have OBD system problems may be exempted by VA DEQ from an OBD check and instead be given tailpipe tests. Vehicles whose OBD system is determined to be “not ready” to be checked, as defined by Virginia regulation, will be rejected from testing. 2. Model Year Coverage Revised to Exempt 25-Year-Old and Older Vehicles From Testing Virginia revised its I/M program model year coverage, moving to a rolling exemption for vehicles 25 years and older at the time of inspection, in place of its previous age-based exemption for 1968 and older vehicles. Virginia statute required this change, and DEQ has implemented this practice since July 2000. The change results in a decrease in the number of cars being tested under the I/M program, as each year another model year is exempted. In 2004, the last year Virginia provided data, VA DEQ estimated this model year coverage change would result in the testing of approximately 19,400 fewer vehicles. Virginia estimates that this will result in an increase of volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions of approximately 0.55 tons per day in 2002, or about 3.5% of the total VOC emissions reductions associated with the I/M program. No nitrogen oxide (NO <sup>X</sup> ) penalty has been associated with this change, as the vehicles affected would have been tested with idle testing (in the 2002 and 2005 evaluation timeframes for which I/M programs were required to be evaluated under the Federal I/M rule). Virginia did not calculate carbon monoxide
(CO)impacts from this change, as the Northern Virginia region is classified as CO attainment, and a CO emissions inventory for this timeframe was unavailable. Virginia has modeled the 25-year rolling exemption in the attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress plans for the Metropolitan Washington DC 1-hr ozone nonattainment area. 3. Revision of ASM Test Standards/Removal of ASM Test Procedure Pre-Screening Requirements Virginia's June 2002 I/M regulation revised the testing standards, or cutpoints, for determining whether vehicles pass or fail Virginia's 2-mode ASM 5015/2525 tailpipe emissions test. Virginia had previously required that start-up standards were to be used for one year after program implementation, per EPA's ASM technical guidance document entitled “Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emissions Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications” (draft dated July 2000, final dated July 2004). Virginia's 2002 revised rule applies final ASM standards, unless VA DEQ determines that phase-in standards or interim standards (i.e., less stringent than final, but more stringent than phase-in standards) should be used. Such a determination would be based upon results of emissions inspections from ASM tests performed under the program and after consultation with vehicle manufacturers, EPA, and appropriate research organizations. Virginia also removed ASM test standards for those model year vehicles no longer subject to testing, due to its age-based exemption for vehicles older than 25 years. 4. Revision of 2-Speed Idle Test Standards Under the June 2002 I/M rule revision, Virginia enacted more stringent emissions test standards, or cutpoints, for 2-speed idle tailpipe emissions testing conducted on some 1990 and newer vehicles. VA DEQ determined that more stringent 2-speed idle testing was justified, based upon an analysis of failure rates for these vehicles subject to 2-speed idle testing and also by reviewing standards and fail rates from other programs that use 2-speed idle testing. Previously, 1990 and newer vehicles having advanced technology needed only to meet standards applicable to 1981 and older vehicles. Some of these newer, advanced technology vehicles with known faults were able to pass the test under the previous, less stringent standard for 1981 and older vehicles. The revised 2-speed idle cutpoints are 110 parts per million
(ppm)of hydrocarbon
(HC)and 0.75% carbon monoxide (CO), where they had been 220 ppm HC and 1.2% CO. Virginia has been testing under these more stringent cutpoints since October 2002. As part of the SIP, VA DEQ estimated the number of additional vehicles that would fail with the more stringent standards in place. For 2004, which was the latest year for which Virginia provided an estimate, about 800 additional vehicles were expected to fail than would have if the less stringent standards had remained in place. 5. Relaxation of Roadside Remote Sensing Standards and Flexibility for VA DEQ To Use Various Pollutants for Roadside Screening Criteria Roadside remote sensing program requirements were revised by Virginia in its June 2002 revised I/M program rule. Remote sensing is used to ensure motorist compliance with the program. Remote sensing reads a vehicle as it passes by a roadside sensor, after which the vehicle's emissions are checked against standards set by the state. In the case of Virginia's remote sensing program, if the vehicle is checked twice in a 90-day period and has emissions beyond the standards, the owner may be required to undergo an out-of-cycle emissions test. Virginia relaxed its remote sensing emissions standards as part of the June 2002 I/M rule revision to avoid the potential for false failures of the remote sensing test (i.e., to avoid failing vehicles using remote sensing that would otherwise pass regular tailpipe emissions or OBD checks). Putting aside differences between Virginia's regular tailpipe tests versus a remote sensing test, there is a level of uncertainty when comparing vehicles in a station tailpipe testing environment versus roadside remote sensing. Virginia revised its remote sensing test standards to ensure an adequate margin of error to avoid subjecting motorists to unnecessary out-of-cycle emissions tests. Virginia also revised its remote sensing test criteria to allow VA DEQ to use HC or CO, or a combination of both, as criteria for remote sensing pass or fail. At the time of the December 2002 SIP revision, Virginia had not yet performed mandatory remote sensing testing as part of its I/M program. Virginia subsequently conducted a pilot remote sensing program to evaluate potential problems with remote sensing prior to use of remote sensing as a mandatory element of the I/M program, and as a result subsequently revised its remote sensing program. Those changes, as well as others related to remote sensing as a tool to ensure ongoing motorist compliance were submitted as part of the June 18, 2007 SIP revision, and are discussed below, in the portion of this rulemaking related to that SIP submittal. EPA is taking action on both the December 18, 2002 SIP revision, and the later, June 18, 2007 SIP revisions, which updated the December 18, 2002 provisions. Where the same regulatory provisions are included in both SIP submittals, EPA is proposing to take action on the most recent version of the regulatory provisions. 6. Revision of Requirements for Evaporative System Pressure and Purge Testing As part of its June 2002 regulatory revisions, Virginia removed the requirement to conduct evaporative system purge testing from the I/M program. Purge testing was a means to measure the instantaneous purge flow from the vehicle's evaporative canister to the engine's intake manifold, in order to ensure proper operation of the evaporative system. The purge test was to have been performed in conjunction with ASM testing beginning in 1999. In a November 5, 1996 policy memo, EPA determined purge testing to be intrusive and potentially damaging, and therefore did not enforce the implementation of this requirement. A suitable alternative test has never materialized, and the latest version of EPA's emission factor model, MOBILE6, has eliminated any HC emissions benefit associated with purge testing. Virginia never implemented purge testing as part of its I/M program, and EPA has never acted to enforce that SIP provision of Virginia's prior approved SIP. Given this reality, Virginia removed purge testing as an element of the I/M program in its June 2002 revised rule. Implementation of evaporative pressure testing has been left to the discretion of VA DEQ. The evaporative pressure test is a test to measure levels of evaporated fuel between the fuel tank and the engine to ensure the system is not compromised and releasing these emissions to the ambient air. Virginia's prior approved SIP required evaporative emissions testing to have begun in 1998, but such testing was delayed due to technical limitations of the pressure test. EPA acknowledged difficulties with evaporative canister-based pressure testing in a November 5, 1996 policy memo (as well as discussing a potential fill pipe-based alternative in conjunction with gas cap testing). Virginia revised its I/M rule in June 2002 to indefinitely delay implementation of pressure testing as an element of Virginia's I/M program, to a date to be determined the director of the VA DEQ (with at least one year notification to station owners in the event the test is to be implemented). It should be noted that modern OBD systems have sensors to detect leaks in the evaporative system, and to monitor the purge system, so 1996 and newer vehicles will be have their evaporative systems monitored via an OBD check as part of the program. The MOBILE model now reflects emissions benefits from this check of newer vehicles. 7. Revision of Requirements for Federal and Private Fleet Testing and Reporting Virginia made several changes with respect to the testing of federal fleet vehicles in its December 2002 SIP revision. Under the prior approved SIP, federal fleets had been required to submit compliance reports to VA DEQ, while private fleets were not subject to compliance reporting. Virginia revised its I/M program rule in June 2002 to rescind the requirement that administrators of federal fleets submit reports to VA DEQ to demonstrate fleet compliance, thus treating federal and private fleets equally. At the same time, Virginia repealed a related requirement for federal fleets to remit a $2 annual fee for each vehicle not registered with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. Virginia also added “sensitive mission vehicle emissions fleet inspection station” to the list of qualified applicants who can apply to VA DEQ for inspection station permits. This change allows agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish inspection stations, in order to avoid potential exposure of their sensitive mission vehicles (as defined under Virginia's I/M rule) when undergoing emissions testing. 8. Revision of Visible Emissions Standard To Include a Standard for Diesel-Powered Vehicles Subject to OBD Testing Virginia added a standard for visible air pollutant emissions for diesel-powered vehicles that are now subject to OBD testing as part of Virginia's I/M program in its June 2002 rule revision. The standard limits emission of visible air pollutants from the tailpipe of a subject diesel vehicle to a density of no more than 20% opacity for longer than 10 consecutive seconds (after the engine reaches operating temperature), per Reference Method 9. 9. Elimination of Deadlines for Waiver Limit Increases That Have Already Passed and Established Criteria for Issuance by VA DEQ of Temporary Waiver If Necessary Repair Parts Are Not Available Repair waivers are a form of I/M program compliance that allow the motorist to comply with an I/M program without meeting the applicable test standard. A waiver may be issued if the vehicle fails an inspection, undergoes qualifying repairs up to a program-designated repair cost waiver limit, and then fails its retest. EPA rules allowed programs to phase-in waiver limits to a statutory limit of $450, adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Virginia removed phase-in deadlines for full waiver cost compliance under the June 2002 I/M rule revision, instead stating that beginning January 2003 waiver eligibility shall be $450 adjusted to reflect the increase in the CPI. Virginia amended its June 2002 I/M rule to include criteria for issuance of a temporary waiver due to unavailability of components necessary to complete repairs to pass the test or to qualify for a waiver. To obtain a temporary waiver, the motorist must provide a signed statement from an owner of a parts supplier stating that needed parts are unavailable, including a description and part number(s) of said parts. 10. Repeal of Requirements Limiting Warranty Eligibility for Certain Emissions Short Tests Virginia repealed its short test standards for warranty eligibility (9 VAC 5-91-470) in its June 2002 rule revision. In the past, this language had served to ensure that short test emissions results did not exceed 220 ppm of HC and 1.2% CO. However, with the June 2002 revision of Virginia's 2-speed idle test standards and the change in I/M program model year coverage to vehicles 25 years and newer, there are no longer any vehicles subject to I/M (and which are eligible for federal emissions warranty coverage) for which test cutpoints exceed the threshold of 220 ppm HC and 1.2% CO. Therefore, the warranty eligibility provisions of 9 VAC 5-91-470 are no longer relevant, and have thus been repealed by Virginia. 11. Modification of Penalty Schedule for Major Violations Related to Emissions Inspections In their June 2002 I/M rule revision, Virginia revised their list of regulatory provisions (9 VAC 5-91-620) of which a violation constitutes a major violation. Major violations are defined by Virginia as the most serious offenses resulting from unacceptable performance in conducting emissions inspections that would directly affect the credibility, integrity, and emissions reductions associated with the I/M program. Virginia indicated in the SIP revision that this revised list of provisions (of which a violation constitutes a major violation) is a reflection of the additional flexibility incorporated in the revised regulation for emission inspection procedures. 12. Revision of a Number of Definitions To Reflect Related Regulatory Changes, and Repeal Others That Are No Longer Needed To Support the Commonwealth's Regulations Virginia revised a number of its definitions of terms in 9 VAC 5-91-20, and repealed others altogether, in support of other changes made to the Commonwealth's I/M rule in June 2002. Some terms were also revised for improved clarity, while others were revised to correct cross-references to other revised regulatory sections. Terms that were revised include: access code; actual gross weight; affected motor vehicle; air system; alternative fuel; certified enhanced analyzer system; chargeable inspection; curb idle; dedicated alternative fuel vehicle; emissions control systems; enhanced emissions inspection program; evaporative system pressure test; flexible fuel vehicle; formal hearing; fuel filler cap pressure test; gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); informal fact finding; inspection fee; motor vehicle; motor vehicle inspection report; on-board diagnostic system (OBD system); on-board diagnostic system test (OBD system test); on-board diagnostic vehicle (OBD vehicle); operated primarily; reinspection or retest; remote sensing; thermostatic air cleaner; two-speed idle test (TSI); and vehicle specific power (VSP). Terms that were repealed include: aborted test; alternative evaporative system purge and pressure test; emissions repair facility; emissions repair technician; evaporative system purge test; federal employee; federal facility; gross weight; inspector access code; inspector number; original equipment manufacturer (OEM); state implementation plan; thermometer, certified; and Tier 1. Terms that were newly added by Virginia include: aborted test; emissions control equipment; identification number; and implementation plan (replacing state implementation plan, which has been removed). In addition to the items detailed above, Virginia made several other changes to the I/M rule as part of the December 18, 2002 SIP revision that are organizational in nature, or are otherwise minor in importance, and are not discussed in detail in this action. Please refer to the technical support document prepared in support of this action, or to this version of the Commonwealth's I/M regulation, which was published in the *Virginia Register of Regulations* on June 17, 2002 and can be found in the docket for this action. B. Virginia's June 18, 2007 SIP Revision Virginia again revised its I/M program regulations codified in Title 9, Chapter 91 of the Virginia Code in a final rule published in the *Virginia Register of Regulations* on May 30, 2005 (Volume 21, Issue 19). Virginia submitted this latest version of its I/M regulation (9 VAC 5-91) as part of a June 18, 2007 SIP revision submitted to EPA. The submitted portions of this more recent version of the Commonwealth's I/M regulation supersedes those portions of 9 VAC 5-91 published earlier that were submitted to EPA in the prior SIP submittal (i.e., the December 18, 2002 SIP revision). Where Virginia has submitted the same regulatory provisions in separate SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to act upon the later version of the regulation. The Commonwealth's May 2005 regulation serves to make a number of changes to Virginia's roadside testing program (i.e., remote sensing) provisions of the regulation. The remote sensing program is a roadside test to ensure that vehicles primarily operated in the I/M program area do not grossly exceed emissions limits set by the I/M program. The program serves both to identify high emitting vehicles subject to regular I/M checks, and to monitor vehicles that are not subject to traditional biennial emissions inspections in Virginia. Roadside testing can serve to identify subject vehicles that have become high emitters since their last regular biennial emission inspection, or that may have been high emitters at the time of their most recent inspection but passed that test in error. Roadside remote sensing observations may require motorists with vehicles identified as high emitters by roadside testing to undergo an additional “off cycle” I/M inspection, or in the alternative to pay a civil penalty. In general, the Commonwealth amended the regulation to reflect new remote sensing emissions standards, and the criteria for conducting random, roadside “off-cycle” testing of motor vehicle emissions, as well as protocols for testing and procedures to notify owners of test results. The Commonwealth's regulatory changes relate primarily to: 1. Changes in remote sensing model year applicability, relating to vehicles subject to remote sensing; 2. Protocols for determination of gross polluters and clean car screening; 3. Changes to remote sensing test procedures; 4. Changes to remote sensing test standards; 5. Financial assistance provisions; 6. Changes in enforcement and compliance procedures; and 7. Changes to regulatory definitions. A summary of these changes made by Virginia under the May 2005 final rule are detailed below: 1. Changes in Remote Sensing Model Year Applicability Virginia amended its regulation in order to comply with changes to the Code of Virginia. Model year coverage, with respect to remote sensing under 9 VAC 5-91-180, was expanded to include vehicles of model year 1968 and newer. Previously, applicability for remote sensing was limited to those “affected vehicles” subject to I/M testing (i.e., the 25 most recent model years). The Commonwealth also revised their definition of “operate primarily” (for purposes of remote sensing) to include a vehicle observed by roadside remote sensing equipment at least three times in a two-month period (with no less than 30 days between the first and last readings). Vehicles exceeding the standards twice in any 120-day period (as opposed to the Commonwealth's previous requirement for 90-day observation period) will be determined to have violated the standards, and will require a confirmation test (ASM or OBD test) at an emission inspection station. 2. Protocols for Determination of High Emitting Vehicles and Clean Screening Virginia has amended is protocols for determining whether a vehicle is a gross polluter. Virginia's “high emitter index” is a means of categorizing probable emission failure rates of engine families. The index is determined by calculating the historical emissions inspection failure rate (by vehicle model year, make, model, and engine size) to the historical emissions inspection failure rate of all the engine families in that same group. Failure rates are based on the most recent full year of emissions inspection test data. Vehicles with a high emitter index of greater than 75 are deemed high emitters. Beginning January 1, 2005, motor vehicles that exceed the Virginia's remote sensing emissions standards on two separate days in any 120-day period shall be considered to have violated the emissions standards. In addition, the department may use the high emitter index as a screening requirement. Beginning July 1, 2005, based on analysis of remote sensing failure rates and confirmation test results, the VA DEQ may determine than an affected vehicle is a high emitter if the vehicle exceeds remote sensing standards a single time and has a “high emitter index” of greater than 75. Beginning July 1, 2005, clean screening will be used by Virginia to identify affected vehicles eligible for an exemption from their next scheduled emissions test. Up to five percent of the total vehicles measured by on-road testing (i.e., remote sensing) during any 30-day period may be identified as “clean screen vehicles”. At the discretion of VA DEQ, vehicles identified as such may receive a “pass” for their next scheduled emissions test, without undergoing a regular, biennial emissions inspection. 3. Changes to Remote Sensing Test Procedures Virginia has amended its exhaust emissions standards for its remote sensing program. Beginning July 1, 2005, motor vehicles determined to exceed roadside remote sensing standards after two or more measurements in any 120-day period, shall be considered to have violated emissions standards and shall be subject to an off-cycle, confirmation test. A vehicle exceeding the remote sensing standards a single time (which is also determined by the VA DEQ to have a “high emitter index” greater than 75) will be subject to an off-cycle, confirmation test. Vehicles subject to confirmation testing may be subject to the applicable emissions test for their vehicle, and vehicles 1996 and newer may be subject to exhaust testing, in addition to an OBD system test. A failed confirmation inspection (ordered by VA DEQ due to a roadside, remote sensing test failure) will be a chargeable inspection, while a passing confirmation test will not result in a test fee. 4. Changes to Remote Sensing Test Standards Virginia has revised its remote sensing exhaust emission standards to establish separate standards for light-duty gasoline vehicles (i.e., passenger cars), light-duty gasoline trucks, and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. Additionally, Virginia has established standards that apply in the case where two or more on-road, remote sensing measurements are gathered for an applicable vehicle over a 120-day period. Separate standards apply in the case of a single on-road measurement, where a vehicle is also determined by VA DEQ to have a “high emitter index” of 75 or more. Virginia has for the first time established nitric oxide
(NO)remote sensing standards, in addition to existing standards for HC and CO. All remote sensing measurements are to be measured based upon vehicle specific power (VSP), which is a means of utilizing vehicle speed, drag coefficient, tire rolling resistance and roadway grade to characterize the load under which a vehicle is operating at the time a remote measuring measurement is taken. Only valid remote sensor measurements with a VSP between 3 and 22 shall be used to determine if a vehicle violates the remote sensing standards. Finally, Virginia amended its 2-speed idle exhaust emissions test standards to add standards for 1968-1974 model year vehicles. These vehicles were no longer subject to regular, biennial emissions testing under Virginia's June 2002 regulatory amendments, but are now affected motor vehicles subject to roadside remote sensing tests, and, if necessary, follow-up, 2-speed idle confirmation testing. 5. Financial Assistance Provisions Virginia's amended regulation establishes a financial assistance program to subsidize repair costs of some vehicles determined to be in violation of roadside remote sensing standards. Qualified individuals may receive up to 50% of the cost of emission-related repairs or up to 50% of the waiver amount (after a co-payment of $100). To qualify, an individual must be the registered owner of the vehicle (registered in the program area), have a household income less than 133% of federal poverty guidelines, and the vehicle must have a valid safety inspection. Only individual vehicle owners are eligible for assistance—commercial, non-profit, and government vehicles are ineligible. Remote sensing roadside testing has been expanded to include vehicles previously not subject to remote sensing. These affected vehicles include those newer than model year 1968 (versus the previous coverage of vehicles 25 model years old, or newer). 6. Changes to Enforcement and Compliance Procedures Upon determination by VA DEQ that a roadside, remote sensing violation occurred, motorists will be informed in writing by that department of such failure. Motor vehicle owners that receive a notice of violation of roadside, remote sensing standards will be required to furnish proof that their vehicle passed a confirmation test or received a waiver within 30 days of a notice of violation of remote sensing standards. At that time, civil charges will be assessed (unless the vehicle is due for its regularly scheduled biennial emissions test within 3 months of the date of the measured violation of the remote sensing standard). Civil charges assessed for failure to pass (or receive a waiver) from a confirmation test are to be based upon the degree by which the vehicle exceeds the remote sensing standards. Violations up to 150% of the applicable standard will result in a charge of no more than 50% of the cost of a program waiver (i.e., $450, adjusted annually by the 1990 Consumer Price Index). Violations over 150% of the applicable remote sensing standard will result in a civil charge no more than 100% of a program waiver. 7. Changes to Regulatory Definitions Virginia revised several definitions in 9 VAC 5-91-120 in its May 30, 2005 regulatory amendment. The definitions of the following terms were revised: affected motor vehicle; light duty truck (LDT); light duty truck (LDT1); light duty truck (LDT2); light duty vehicle; and operated primarily. Definitions for the following terms were added to 9 VAC 5-91-120: confirmation test; heavy duty gasoline vehicle (HDGV); high emitter index (HEI); light duty gasoline vehicle (LDGV); light duty gasoline truck (LDGT1); light duty gasoline truck (LDGT2); and vehicle specific power (VSP). IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information
(1)that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;
(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;
(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or
(4)that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. V. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's revisions to the enhanced I/M program SIP for the Northern Virginia I/M program area. These SIP revisions were formally submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth on December 18, 2002, on April 2, 2003, and on June 18, 2007. EPA's review of this material indicates that the Commonwealth's revisions to the prior, SIP-approved I/M program continue to adhere to Federal requirements applicable to enhanced inspection and maintenance programs. EPA reviewed the Commonwealth's revisions to the enhanced I/M program in accordance with requirements for inspection and maintenance programs in sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act, and with Federal rule requirements for I/M programs, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. Many of these changes made by the Commonwealth's most recent SIP revisions have been in effect in Virginia's program since October 1, 2002, with some state statutory-driven changes having taken effect earlier (e.g., model year coverage changes) and some changes phased in according to later state regulatory deadlines (e.g., separate provisions for mandatory OBD testing for gasoline-powered vehicles and diesel-powered vehicles). The Commonwealth's revised roadside testing program (i.e., remote sensing) regulatory changes have a state effective date of June 2005. However, some of the provisions of these rules had delayed or phased-in implementation and began more recently, such as light duty diesel OBD testing. These revisions to the Commonwealth's I/M program have already taken effect at the state level, and implementation of these provisions has been noncontroversial at the state level. Virginia has relied upon the revised I/M program (including the 2002 regulatory changes to the program) as the basis for its modeling of the Greater Washington DC Metropolitan area 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration and rate-of-progress plans, and this most recent iteration of the program ( *i.e.* , the Commonwealth's May 2005 version of the I/M regulations) is modeled as a control measure for Virginia's attainment demonstration SIP for the Washington DC 8-hour ozone nonattainment plan. The revised I/M program continues to achieve VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions reductions toward meeting the ozone national ambient air quality standard. For additional information concerning EPA's review of Virginia's SIP revisions, please refer to the Technical Support Document prepared by EPA in support of this rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule to approve revisions to Virginia's enhanced I/M program SIP does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: February 6, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-2552 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0665; FRL-8528-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Texas Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)for the state of Texas. This revision makes changes to the Texas Low-Emission Diesel (TXLED) Fuel program. The revision establishes a replicable procedure for the State to approve Alternative Emission Reduction Plans (AERPs), extends the date of state approvals, and brings marine diesel fuels under the TXLED program. The revision also refines and clarifies testing requirements. The changes being proposed for approval positively influence the reductions of oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) to be achieved. As a result and in accordance with section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), this revision will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0665, by one of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson at *Donaldson.guy@epa.gov.* Also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • *Fax:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0665. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at
(214)665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cents per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-7367; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *rennie.sandra@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This document concerns control of air pollution of NO <sup>X</sup> and VOCs from mobile sources in 110 counties of East Texas where the rule applies. This low-emission diesel fuel program applies to both on-road and non-road vehicles in the affected area. What Action Are We Taking Today? We approved the original TXLED rule on November 14, 2001, (66 FR 57196) in conjunction with the Houston-Galveston One-Hour Attainment Demonstration SIP. We also approved revisions to this rule on April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17321), and on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58325). Today we are proposing to approve revisions to the TXLED rule submitted May 15, 2006, June 11, 2007, and June 13, 2007. Among other things, the revisions establish a replicable procedure for the State to evaluate Alternative Emission Reduction Plans (AERPs) so that changes to those plans do not have to be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. Both EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality view this approach as a way to conserve resources. The revisions also extend the expiration date for state-approved AERPs and require two forms of marine diesel fuel to be subject to TXLED requirements. Other less substantive revisions are listed in the next section. What Did the State Submit? On May 15, 2006, the State submitted revisions to TXLED rules found in 30 TAC 114.6, 114.312, 114.313, 114.315, 114.316, 114.317, and 114.318. These revisions were adopted by the State on April 26, 2006. These include revisions to definitions; low emission diesel standards; designated alternate limits; approved test methods; monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; exemption to low emission diesel requirements; and alternative emission reduction plans. On June 11, 2007, the State submitted revisions adopted on May 9, 2007, to § 114.318, Alternative Emission Reduction Plan. On June 13, 2007, the State submitted revisions adopted on May 23, 2007, to § 114.6, Definitions, and to § 114.319, Affected Counties and Compliance Dates. Why Are These Revisions Approvable? EPA finds that the TCEQ submittal meets the requirements of the CAA. We analyzed the rule revisions to ensure that they did not compromise the integrity of the approved SIP. Some changes were non-substantive editorial or format changes. Some substantive changes are considered minor. Major substantive changes are discussed below. A detailed analysis of all changes can be found in the Technical Support Document that accompanies this action. Section 114.6. Definitions The definition of additive is reworded for clarification. The definition of diesel fuel is expanded to include Diesel Marine fuel type X, also known as DMX, and Marine Gas Oil, also known as MGO. While these fuels do not share all fuel parameters with an EPA defined diesel fuel, EPA diesel and these marine fuels share many fuel parameters and are all light distillates. Because section 114.312(a) requires all “diesel fuel” to conform to TXLED standards or to an approved AERP, these marine fuels will now be subject to those requirements. Requiring these marine fuels to meet the TXLED requirements will cause these fuels to achieve the desired benefit, thereby ensuring further NO <sup>X</sup> reductions. Section 114.312. Low Emission Diesel Standards Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)were removed from the list of emissions that were required to be comparable to those of TXLED for alternative fuel formulation testing. This change was made to be consistent with changes made elsewhere in the rule. Because this rule is a NO <sup>X</sup> control measure, and not intended to produce VOC reductions, and because VOC emissions from diesel engines are very small in any case, we propose to find approvable the removal of the VOC comparison requirement. Past SIP submittals for attainment, such as the Dallas-Fort Worth 1-hour attainment demonstration (April 2000) and the Houston 1-hour attainment demonstration (December 2000), do not contain values for and do not rely on VOC benefit from the TXLED program. Section 114.315. Approved Test Methods The State added specificity and clarity to the approved rules by making the following changes. The correlation equation to be used with ASTM Test Method D5186 is now specified. This equation is the same equation that appears in the EPA-approved CARB diesel rules. The adopted rule now requires the Executive Director to consult with and obtain agreement from EPA before the State approves an alternative to a test method. Additional fuel properties must be taken into consideration in characterizing the candidate fuel used in alternative fuel formulation testing. These include API gravity index, viscosity at 40 degrees C, flash point, and distillation in degrees F. Additional requirements that the test engine must meet are specified. The test engine must have a minimum specified amount of operation before initiating testing and must operate within 110% of its certified emission levels. An alternative test sequence, which EPA had not previously acted upon, was deleted from the rule. For a fuel to qualify as a TXLED fuel under the alternative fuel formulation portion of the rules, EPA must also be satisfied with the testing demonstration. These revisions are approvable because the changes make the rule more clear and provide for EPA involvement where necessary. Section 114.316. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Reporting on the additive used in an alternative fuel formulation is shifted from simply the amount used to a demonstration of how the emission reductions are achieved in the AERP. This strengthens the rule by making it more enforceable. Section 114.318. Alternative Emission Reduction Plans The AERP allows a diesel fuel producer to comply with the NO <sup>X</sup> reduction requirements of TXLED by employing an alternate fuel strategy. In the May 15, 2006, revision a replicable procedure is outlined that removes the requirement for all AERP changes to be approved by EPA with a SIP revision. The procedure describes in detail how a producer can meet the requirements of this section by complying with one or more methods laid out in this section of the rule. Several methods utilize credit for the early introduction of low sulfur gasoline. We had detailed discussions with the State and refiners to reach consensus on these methods. The amount of sulfur reduction from the early introduction of low sulfur gasoline is used to calculate the appropriate gasoline-to-diesel offset ratios. We find the replicable procedure presented in the SIP to be an approvable approach to handling changes to AERPs. The June 11, 2007 revision extends the expiration date for state-approved AERPs from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2007. The purpose of extending this date was to provide time for producers and vendors to complete testing of alternative fuel formulations and additives, which in turn would provide more options in the marketplace to comply with the rule requirements. We found that this date extension had no impact on the path to the 2009 attainment year. Therefore this date extension is approvable. Section 114.319. Affected Counties and Compliance Dates This section is amended to set a phased compliance schedule for the implementation of the marine diesel requirements. Producers and importers must comply by October 1, 2007, bulk distributors must comply by November 15, 2007, and retail dispensers and other affected persons must comply by January 1, 2008. Whereas all 110 counties are covered in this section, the revision covering marine fuels applies only to the HGB nonattainment area counties of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller. Proposed Action We are proposing approval of these revisions to the TXLED rule as submitted May 15, 2006, June 11, 2007, and June 13, 2007. The revisions being proposed for approval maintain the potential for the projected NO <sup>X</sup> reductions to be achieved. As a result, and in accordance with section 110(l) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(l), these revisions will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Dated: January 23, 2008. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E8-2556 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WC Docket No. 07-245; FCC 07-187] Implementation of Section 224 of the Act; Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments; Correction AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects the reply comment date for a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** of February 6, 2008. The corrected reply comment date is April 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Reel, 202-418-0637. Correction In proposed rule FR Doc. E8-2177, beginning on page 6879 in the issue of February 6, 2008, make the following corrections: 1. On page 6879, in the Dates section, in the 2nd column, “Reply Comments are due March 24, 2008” is corrected to read “Reply Comments are due April 7, 2008”. 2. On page 6879, in the Supplementary Information section, in the 2nd column, change “Reply Comments on or before March 24, 2008” is corrected to read “Reply Comments on or before April 7, 2008”. 3. On page 6883, in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section, in paragraph 19, in the 2nd column, “Reply Comments are due on March 24, 2008” is corrected to read “Reply Comments are due on April 7, 2008”. 4. On page 6883, in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section, in paragraph 21, in the 2nd column, “Reply Comments are due March 24, 2008” is corrected to read “Reply Comments are due April 7, 2008”. Federal Communications Commission. Ruth A. Dancey, Associate Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2564 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 07-198; DA 08-113] Review of the Commission's Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period. SUMMARY: The Media Bureau extends the reply comment deadline on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)on revisions to the Commission's program access and retransmission consent rules and whether it may be appropriate to preclude the practice of programmers to tie desired programming with undesired programming. To facilitate the development of a thorough record, the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the NPRM is extended to February 12, 2008. DATES: Reply comments are due on or before February 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 07-198, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Konczal, *David.Konczal@fcc.gov,* of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202)418-2120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Order in MB Docket No. 07-198, DA 08-113, released on January 17, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS ( *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Summary of the Order 1. On October 1, 2007, the Commission released an NPRM on revisions to the Commission's program access and retransmission consent rules and whether it may be appropriate to preclude the practice of programmers to tie desired programming with undesired programming. The NPRM set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 45 days, respectively, after publication of a summary of the NPRM in the **Federal Register** . A summary of the NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2007, 72 FR 61590, October 31, 2007. Accordingly, the filing dates were initially established as November 30, 2007 for comments and December 17, 2007 for reply comments. On November 20, 2007, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice extending the time for filing comments to January 4, 2008, and the time for filing reply comments to January 22, 2008 (72 FR 73744, December 28, 2007). 2. The Walt Disney Company (Disney), Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. (Fox), and Viacom Inc. (Viacom) filed motions seeking a 30-day extension of the reply comment deadline. The parties argue that the instant proceeding is complex, fact-intensive, and requires parties to review over a thousand pages of comments. The parties contend that the eighteen-day period between the comment and reply comment deadlines does not provide sufficient time for parties to respond effectively. The parties submit that additional time to prepare reply comments will cause no hardship or prejudice to other interested parties or to the Commission and will facilitate the development of a meaningful record. 3. As set forth in § 1.46 of the Commission's rules, the Commission's policy is that extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking proceedings shall not be routinely granted. 47 CFR 1.46. In this case, however, an extension of the reply comment period is warranted to enable commenters to adequately review and respond to the extensive comments filed in response to the NPRM. We decline, however, to grant the full extension requested by the parties. With the additional extension granted herein, interested parties will now have a total of 39 days to prepare reply comments. As the parties note, this is longer than the 30-day reply period provided in other recent proceedings. We believe that this provides parties with ample time to respond to the comments filed in response to the NPRM. 4. Accordingly, to the extent described above, we hereby grant the Motions for Extension of Time filed in MB Docket No. 07-198 by Disney, Fox, and Viacom. The time for filing reply comments is extended to February 12, 2008. 5. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and §§ 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46. 6. Specific instructions for filing comments are located at paragraphs 26-27 of the item as published in the **Federal Register** and at paragraphs 139-142 of the item as released by the Commission and that appears on the Commission's Web site: *http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.doc* Federal Communications Commission. Steven A. Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-2566 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 73 29 Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 *et seq.* ), the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. EDA has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment [January 1, 2008 through January 31, 2008] Firm Address Date accepted for filing Products Master Solutions, Inc PO Box 4444, 20 Wolfbridge Road, Carlisle, PA 17013 1/2/2008 Material handling systems; automatic truck loading systems; and specialty trailer manufacturing. Advanced Cast Products, Inc 18700 Mill Street, Meadville, PA 16335 1/3/2008 Manufactures ductile iron parts for a variety of industries. The William L. Bonnell Company, Inc 25 Bonnel Street, Newman, GA 30263 1/3/2008 John J. Steuby Company 6002 N. Lindbergh, Hazelwood, MO 63042 1/4/2008 Century Specialty Windows, Inc #1 Flair Road, US Highway 72, Lumberton, NC 28358 1/7/2008 The company manufactures and markets decorative specialty windows, clear and decorative glass inserts and window operating hardware to domestic markets. TGZ Acquisition Company, LLC dba JACE 2 Pin Oak Lane, Suite 200, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 1/8/2008 Manufactures, sells, and rents Continuous Passive Motion
(CPM)and electrotherapy devices. Boyce Highlands, Inc 14 Whitney Road, Concord, NH 03301 1/8/2008 Custom-made solid wooden moldings, both finished & unfinished. Steel Parts Manufacturing 801 Berryman Pike, Tipton, IN 46072 1/8/2008 Parts of clutches and similar stamped steel transmission components for the automotive industry. Sierra Midwest, Inc 3100 S. Santa Fe Street, Chanute, KS 66720 1/10/2008 Single, double and multi-sided printed circuit boards. AFC Stamping & Production, Inc 4900 Webster St, Dayton, OH 45414 1/14/2008 Metal stampings for the motor vehicle, appliance, medical device and other industries. Century Industries, Inc 2300 E 145th St, Little Rock, AR 72206-5809 1/14/2008 Folding attic stairways. AFC Stamping & Production, Inc 4900 Webster St, Dayton, OH 45414 1/14/2008 Metal stampings for the motor vehicle, appliance, medical device and other industries. Helton Inc 8700 Manchester Highway, Morrison, TN 37357 1/16/2008 The company produces, markets and distributes thermoformed plastic products and cast urethanes, mainly to OEM manufactures for parts and final assemblies. Kitco, Inc 520 N Enterprise Drive, Warrensburg, MO 64093 1/17/2008 Fiberglass parts. Schuetz Tool & Die, Inc 807 Utah St, Hiawatha, KS 66434 1/18/2008 Tools, Dies, and Parts. LuSys Laboratories 3716 Camel View Road, San Diego, CA 92130 1/24/2008 One-Step Diagnostic Rapid Test—Manufacturing process: Manufacture test strip into plastic cassette, seal into a foil pouch, place 25 pouches into a commercial box, and ship to customer. Parmelee Industries, Inc. dba U.S. Safety 8101 Lenexa Drive, Lenexa, KS 66214 1/31/2008 Eye and face protective gear. Vinylex Corporation 2636 Byington-Solway Road, Knoxville, TN 37931 1/31/2008 Manufactures thermoplastics: Piping, siding, profile tubing (raw materials: PVC & EVA plastics). Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Office of Performance Evaluation, Room 7009, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
(10)calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the procedures set forth in Section 315.9 of EDA's final rule (71 FR 56704) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance. Dated: January 11, 2008. William P. Kittredge, Program Officer for TAA. [FR Doc. 08-570 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
U.S. Code
- Reserve requirements§ 461
- Enumerated powers§ 248
- Definitions§ 601
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Individual retirement accounts§ 408
- Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans§ 401
- Annuities; certain proceeds of endowment and life insurance contracts§ 72
- Civil money penalty§ 505
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards§ 7410
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Petitions and determinations§ 2341
CFR
statutes-at-large
13 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 109-351
- 12 CFR 204.116
- 12 CFR 210
- 5 CFR 1320
- 12 CFR 263
- 12 USC 2222
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 51
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 47 CFR 1
- 47 CFR 76
- 47 CFR 1.46
- 47 CFR 0.61
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-351
Cite12 CFR 204.116
Cite12 CFR 210
Cites 36 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources