60576 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See 76 FR 9268 (February 17, 2011, RIN 1506– 

AB11). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767– 

2825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Bank Secrecy Act (‘‘BSA’’), 

codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 

1951–1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 

and 5316–5332, promotes the 

prevention, detection, and prosecution 

of money laundering, tax evasion, the 

financing of terrorism, and other 

financial crimes. Regulations 

implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR 

Chapter X. The authority of the 

Secretary of the Treasury (‘‘the 

Secretary’’) to administer the BSA and 

its implementing regulations has been 

delegated to the Director of FinCEN. 

Section 5318A of the BSA grants the 

Secretary authority, upon finding that 

reasonable grounds exist for concluding 

that a foreign jurisdiction, foreign 

financial institution, class of 

international transactions, or type of 

account is of ‘‘primary money 

laundering concern,’’ to require 

domestic financial institutions and 

domestic financial agencies to take 

certain ‘‘special measures’’ against the 

primary money laundering concern. 

II. The Finding, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, and Subsequent 

Developments 

A. The Notice of Finding and Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Based upon review and analysis of 

relevant information, consultations with 

relevant Federal agencies and 

departments, and after consideration of 

the factors enumerated in section 311, 

the Director of FinCEN found that 

reasonable grounds existed for 

concluding that LCB was a financial 

institution of primary money laundering 

concern. FinCEN published a proposed 

rule proposing to impose the fifth 

special measure on February 17, 2011, 

pursuant to the authority under 31 

U.S.C. 5318A.1

B. Subsequent Developments 

Since FinCEN’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking, material facts regarding the 

circumstances of the proposed 

rulemaking have changed. On 

September 20, 2011, the Lebanese 

central bank and monetary authority, 

with control over bank supervision and 

regulation, the Banque du Liban (BDL), 

revoked the banking license of LCB and 

delisted LCB from the list of banks 

published by BDL. LCB’s former 

shareholders sold its assets and 

liabilities to the Societe ́ Generale de 

Banque au Liban SAL (SGBL). Because 

of the action taken by the Lebanese 

banking authorities and the liquidation 

of the LCB’s assets, LCB no longer exists 

as a foreign financial institution. 

FinCEN will therefore not proceed with 

the rule proposed on February 17, 2011. 

III. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule 

For the reasons set forth above, 

FinCEN hereby withdraws the February 

17, 2011 proposed rule proposing to 

impose the fifth special measure 

authorized by 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5) 

regarding LCB. FinCEN’s withdrawal of 

the proposed rule does not acknowledge 

any remedial measure taken by LCB, but 

results from the fact that LCB no longer 

exists as a foreign financial institution 

due to the decision by its former 

shareholders to liquidate the bank and 

the revocation of its banking license. 

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2015–24912 Filed 10–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0605; A–1–FRL– 

9935–30–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode 

Island; Sulfur Content of Fuels 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of Rhode 

Island on June 26, 2014, with 

supplemental submittals on March 25, 

2015 and August 28, 2015. This SIP 

revision includes a regulation that has 

been revised to require a lower sulfur 

content for petroleum-based distillate 

and residual fuel oils. In addition, 

outdated provisions in the regulation 

have been removed. The intended effect 

of this action is to propose approval of 

this regulation into the Rhode Island 

SIP. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2014–0605 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0046. 

4. Mail: EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0605, 

Bob McConnell, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Bob McConnell, 

Acting Manager, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittals as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60577 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: September 21, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25333 Filed 10–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0487; FRL–9934–77] 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Ocean 

Acidification; TSCA Section 21 

Petition; Reasons for Agency 

Response 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

reasons for EPA’s denial of a petition it 

received under section 21 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) from the 

Center for Biological Diversity and Donn 

J. Viviani, Ph.D. The petitioners 

requested EPA to initiate rulemaking 

under TSCA to address risks related to 

carbon dioxide emissions, particularly 

those associated with ocean 

acidification, or, in the alternative, that 

EPA initiate rulemaking under TSCA to 

require testing to determine toxicity, 

persistence, and other characteristics of 

carbon dioxide emissions that affect 

human health and the environment. 

After careful consideration, EPA denied 

the TSCA section 21 petition for the 

reasons discussed in this document. 

DATES: EPA’s response to this TSCA 

section 21 petition was signed 

September 25, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Cindy 

Wheeler, National Program Chemicals 

Division (7404), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 566–0484; 

email address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to sources of carbon dioxide 

emissions, such as power plants, cement 

plants, pulp and paper mills, and 

various types of mobile sources. Since 

other entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. 

B. How can I access information about 

this petition? 

The docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2015–0487, is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. TSCA Section 21 

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 petition? 

Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 

2620), any person can petition EPA to 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule 

under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an 

order under TSCA section 5(e) or 

6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition 

must set forth the facts that are claimed 

to establish the necessity for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or 

deny the petition within 90 days of its 

filing. If EPA grants the petition, the 

Agency must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. A petitioner may commence a 

civil action in a U.S. district court to 

compel initiation of the requested 

rulemaking proceeding within 60 days 

of either a denial or the expiration of the 

90-day period. 

B. What criteria apply to a decision on 

a TSCA Section 21 petition? 

Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that 

the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it 

is claimed establish that it is necessary’’ 

to issue the rule or order requested (15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). Thus, TSCA section 

21 implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner after 

denial of a TSCA section 21 petition (15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)). Accordingly, EPA 

has relied on the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition. 

III. TSCA Sections 6 and 4 

Of particular relevance to this TSCA 

section 21 petition are the legal 

standards regarding TSCA section 6 

rules and TSCA section 4 rules. 

A. TSCA Section 6 Rules 

To promulgate a rule under TSCA 

section 6, the EPA Administrator must 

find that ‘‘there is a reasonable basis to 

conclude that the manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

use, or disposal of a chemical substance 

or mixture . . . presents or will present 

an unreasonable risk’’ (15 U.S.C. 

2605(a)). This finding cannot be made 

considering risk alone. Under TSCA 

section 6, a finding of ‘‘unreasonable 

risk’’ requires the consideration of costs 

and benefits. Furthermore, the control 

measure adopted is to be the ‘‘least 

burdensome requirement’’ that 

adequately protects against the 

unreasonable risk (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)). 

In addition, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) 

provides the standard for judicial 

review should EPA deny a request for 

rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a): ‘‘If 

the petitioner demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the court by a 

preponderance of the evidence that . . . 

there is a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the issuance of such a rule . . . is 

necessary to protect health or the 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury,’’ the court shall order the 

EPA Administrator to initiate the 

requested action (15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(4)(B)). 

Also relevant to the issuance of 

regulations under TSCA section 6, 

TSCA section 9(b) directs EPA to take 

regulatory action on a chemical 

substance or mixture under other 

statutes administered by the Agency if 

the EPA Administrator determines that 

actions under those statutes could 

eliminate or reduce to a sufficient extent 

a risk posed by the chemical substance 

or mixture. If this is the case, the 

regulation under TSCA section 6 can be 

promulgated only if the EPA determines 

that it is in the ‘‘public interest’’ to 

protect against that risk under TSCA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS