34224 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1The AML Act was enacted as Division F, 

sections 6001–6511, of the William M. (Mac) 

Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116–283 (2021). 

2Section 6003(3) of the AML Act provides that 

the term ‘‘Federal functional regulator’’ (A) ‘‘has the 

meaning given the term in section 509 of the 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809)’’ and (B) 

‘‘includes any Federal regulator that examines a 

financial institution for compliance with the Bank 

Secrecy Act.’’ Under the relevant provision of the 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the term ‘‘Federal 

functional regulator’’ refers to ‘‘(A) the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System; (B) the 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; (C) the 

Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation; (D) the Director of the Office of Thrift 

Supervision; (E) the National Credit Union 

Administration Board; and (F) the Securities and 

Exchange Commission.’’ 15 U.S.C. 6809(2). 

3AML Act section 6305(a)(1). 

4 Id. section 6305(b). 

5See FinCEN, A Report to Congress: Assessment 

of No-Action Letters in Accordance with Section 

6305 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 

(June 28, 2021), https://www.fincen.gov/sites/ 

default/files/shared/No-Action%20

Letter%20Report%20to%20Congress%20per%20

AMLA%20for%20ExecSec%20

Clearance%20508.pdf. 

6Section 6003(1) of the AML Act defines the 

Bank Secrecy Act as comprising Section 21 of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b), 

Chapter 2 of Title I of Public Law 91–508 (12 U.S.C. 

1951 et seq.), and Subchapter II of Chapter 53 of 

Title 31 of the United States Code. 

7 31 U.S.C. 5311(1), (5). 

8Treasury Order 180–01 (Jan. 14, 2020). 

published May 5, 2022, at 87 FR 26806, 

is corrected as follows: 

1. On page 26809, in the first column, 

the third and fourth lines from the 

bottom of the partial paragraph of (b)(2), 

the language, ‘‘in the in the’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘in the’’. 

2. On page 26811, in the third 

column, the fifth line from the bottom 

of paragraph (e)(1), the language, ‘‘in the 

in the’’ is corrected to read ‘‘in the’’. 

3. On page 26812, in the first column, 

the second line of paragraph (e)(3)(i), 

the language, ‘‘lx’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘lx’’. 

4. On page 26815, in the first column, 

the third line of paragraph (a)(1), the 

language, ‘‘lx’’ is corrected to read ‘‘lx’’. 

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor, 

Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel, (Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2022–12105 Filed 6–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

31 CFR Part 1010 

RIN 1506–AB55 

No-Action Letter Process 

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to solicit public comment on 

questions relating to the implementation 

of a no-action letter process at FinCEN. 

Given that the addition of a no-action 

letter process at FinCEN may affect or 

overlap with other forms of regulatory 

guidance and relief that FinCEN already 

offers, including administrative rulings 

and exceptive or exemptive relief, this 

ANPRM, among other things, seeks 

public input on whether a no-action 

letter process should be implemented 

and, if so, how the no-action letter 

process should interact with those other 

forms of relief. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

ANPRM must be received on or before 

August 5, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal E-rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Refer to Docket Number FINCEN–2022– 

0007 and RIN 1506–AB55. 

• Mail: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network, Enforcement and Compliance 

Division, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 

22183. Refer to Docket Number 

FINCEN–2022–0007 and RIN 1506– 

AB55. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FinCEN Regulatory Support Section at 

1–800–767–2825 or electronically at 

https://www.fincen.gov/contact. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Scope of ANPRM 

This ANPRM seeks comment on the 

possibility of FinCEN establishing a noaction letter process. Section 6305(a) of 

the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 

(the AML Act) 1 requires the Director of 

FinCEN, in consultation with the 

Attorney General, the Federal functional 

regulators,2 State bank supervisors, 

State credit union supervisors, and 

other Federal agencies, as appropriate 

(the ‘‘Consulting Parties’’), to conduct 

an assessment of whether to establish a 

process for FinCEN to issue no-action 

letters in response to inquiries 

concerning whether and how antimoney laundering or countering the 

financing of terrorism laws and 

regulations apply to specific conduct 

(the ‘‘Assessment’’).3 Section 6305(b) of 

the AML Act requires the Secretary of 

the Treasury (the ‘‘Secretary’’), ‘‘in 

coordination with the Director of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 

Attorney General, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, and the Federal 

functional regulators’’ (the 

‘‘Coordinating Parties’’), to submit to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 

Committee on Financial Services of the 

House of Representatives a report with 

findings and determinations from the 

Assessment (the ‘‘Report’’), as well as to 

propose rulemakings, if appropriate, to 

implement the findings and 

determinations.4

On June 28, 2021, FinCEN submitted 

the Report to Congress. The Report 

concluded that FinCEN should 

undertake a rulemaking to establish a 

no-action letter process to supplement 

the existing forms of regulatory 

guidance and relief that third parties 

may request from FinCEN.5 Consistent 

with that conclusion, this ANPRM seeks 

initial public input on the need for a noaction letter process and potential 

procedures and rules regarding its 

implementation. 

Because the adoption of a no-action 

letter process may affect existing forms 

of regulatory guidance and relief offered 

by FinCEN, this ANPRM also seeks 

public input on how a no-action letter 

process should interact with those 

mechanisms and whether the addition 

of a no-action letter process is 

appropriate. 

II. Background 

A. The Bank Secrecy Act 

Enacted in 1970 and amended most 

recently by the AML Act, the Bank 

Secrecy Act (BSA) aids in the 

prevention of money laundering, 

terrorism financing, and other illicit 

financial activity.6 One stated purpose 

of the BSA is to ‘‘require certain reports 

or records that are highly useful in—(A) 

criminal, tax, or regulatory 

investigations, risk assessments, or 

proceedings; or (B) intelligence or 

counterintelligence activities, including 

analysis, to protect against terrorism.’’ 

Another purpose of the BSA is to 

‘‘establish appropriate frameworks for 

information sharing’’ among financial 

institutions and government 

authorities.7

Congress has authorized the Secretary 

to administer the BSA. The Secretary 

has delegated to the Director of FinCEN 

(the ‘‘Director’’) the authority to 

implement, administer, and enforce 

compliance with the BSA and 

associated regulations.8 FinCEN is 

authorized to require financial 

institutions or nonfinancial trades or 

businesses to maintain procedures to 

ensure compliance with the BSA and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34225 

9 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(2). 

10 31 CFR 1010.810(a). 

11 31 CFR 1010.810(b). 

12 Id; Memorandum of Understanding and 

Delegation of Authority to Examine Nonfinancial 

Trades and Businesses (April 21, 2015), available at 

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-001, Ex. 

4.26.1–3. 

13 31 U.S.C. 5321. 

14See 31 CFR 1010.810(d). But see 31 CFR 

1010.810(g) (regarding the delegation of authority 

by FinCEN to IRS to assess and collect civil 

monetary penalties for violations of 31 CFR 

1010.350 and 1010.420). 

15 31 CFR 1010.810(c)(2); 31 CFR 1010(g). 

16See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.17a–8. 

17 31 CFR 1010.715. 

18 Id. Administrative rulings may be modified or 

rescinded under appropriate circumstances, which 

affects the extent to which they are binding and 

have precedential value. 31 CFR 1010.716. 

19 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7); 31 CFR 1010.970. 

20 31 CFR 1010.970(a). 

21Cf., e.g., 17 CFR 140.99 (describing a 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission no-action 

letter as ‘‘a written statement issued by the staff of 

a Division of the Commission or of the Office of the 

General Counsel that it will not recommend 

enforcement action to the Commission for failure to 

comply with a specific provision of the Act or of 

a Commission rule, regulation or order if a 

proposed transaction is completed or a proposed 

activity is conducted by the Beneficiary,’’ and also 

noting that a no-action letter ‘‘represents the 

position only of the Division that issued it, or the 

Office of the General Counsel if issued thereby,’’ 

‘‘binds only the issuing Division or the Office of the 

General Counsel, as applicable, and not the 

Commission or other Commission staff,’’ and may 

be relied upon by ‘‘[o]nly the Beneficiary’’); 17 CFR 

200.81(a) (describing a Securities and Exchange 

Commission no-action letter as a ‘‘letter or other 

written communication . . . requesting a statement 

that, on the basis of the facts stated in such letter 

or other communication, the staff would not 

recommend that the Commission take any 

enforcement action . . . ’’); 84 FR 48229, 48244 

(Sept. 13, 2019) (describing a Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau no-action letter as including a 

statement that ‘‘the Bureau will not make 

supervisory findings or bring a supervisory or 

enforcement action against the recipient predicated 

on the recipient’s offering or providing the 

described aspects of the product or service under 

(a) its authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, or 

abusive acts or practices; or (b) any other described 

statutory or regulatory authority within the 

Bureau’s jurisdiction’’). 

22AML Act section 6305(a)(1). 

23 Id. section 6305(a)(2). 

the regulations promulgated thereunder 

and also to guard against money 

laundering, the financing of terrorism, 

and other forms of illicit finance.9

B. Compliance and Enforcement 

Authority 

FinCEN has overall authority for 

evaluating compliance with the BSA, 

including the coordination and 

direction of procedures and activities of 

all other agencies exercising delegated 

authority.10 Generally, FinCEN has 

delegated its authority to examine 

covered financial institutions for BSA 

compliance to the appropriate Federal 

functional regulators.11 In instances in 

which a covered institution does not 

have a Federal functional regulator (for 

example, money services businesses), 

examination authority is delegated to 

the IRS.12 However, FinCEN can and 

does conduct its own risk-based 

examinations when appropriate. 

FinCEN also has authority to enforce 

the BSA and its implementing 

regulations, including the imposition of 

civil money penalties on financial 

institutions, nonfinancial trades or 

businesses, and other persons that 

violate the BSA.13 Generally, the 

authority to impose such penalties has 

not been delegated.14 Certain 

enforcement authorities have been 

delegated to the IRS, including the 

authority to enforce BSA provisions 

regarding records and reports of foreign 

financial agency transactions and to 

investigate criminal violations of certain 

reporting requirements.15 Appropriate 

law enforcement agencies, including the 

Department of Justice, may also 

investigate and/or prosecute criminal 

violations of the BSA. 

In addition to the authority that 

FinCEN has delegated to the regulatory 

and supervisory agencies under the 

BSA, some agencies have their own 

independent authority to examine the 

institutions they supervise for BSA 

compliance and to take enforcement 

actions for noncompliance. For 

example, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1818(i) 

and 1786(k), and 31 U.S.C. 5321, the 

Federal banking agencies and FinCEN, 

respectively, can bring civil money 

penalty actions for violations of the 

BSA. Furthermore, some agencies may 

impose and enforce regulations 

regarding anti-money laundering or 

countering the financing of terrorism 

under their own separate authorities.16

C. Administrative Rulings, Exceptive or 

Exemptive Relief, and No-Action Letters 

FinCEN currently provides the 

following forms of regulatory guidance 

or relief: (1) administrative rulings and 

(2) exceptive or exemptive relief. An 

administrative ruling is a written ruling 

that interprets the relationship between 

Chapter X of Title 31 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘Chapter X’’)— 

which contains FinCEN’s regulations 

implementing the BSA—and each 

situation for which such a ruling has 

been requested in conformity with 

specified requirements.17 Under 

FinCEN’s regulations, an administrative 

ruling binds FinCEN if it describes a 

specifically identified actual situation. 

In addition, it can have precedential 

value (meaning it ‘‘may be relied upon 

by others similarly situated’’) if FinCEN 

makes it available to the public through 

publication on FinCEN’s website or 

another appropriate forum.18 However, 

if FinCEN does not publish the 

administrative ruling, it may not be 

relied upon by others similarly situated. 

FinCEN may also grant exceptive or 

exemptive relief—that is, an exception 

to or exemption from the BSA or the 

regulatory requirements of Chapter X.19

These exceptions or exemptions may be 

conditional or unconditional, may apply 

to particular persons or classes of 

persons, and may apply to particular 

transactions or classes of transactions. 

But they are applicable only as 

expressly stated in the order of 

authorization, and they are revocable in 

the sole discretion of the Secretary.20

In contrast with these existing forms 

of relief, a ‘‘no-action letter’’ as used by 

other agencies is typically an exercise of 

enforcement discretion wherein the staff 

of an agency or the staff of a division of 

the agency issues a letter indicating its 

intention not to take or recommend 

enforcement action against the 

submitting party for the specific 

conduct presented in the submitting 

party’s request.21 Generally, such letters 

address only prospective activity not yet 

undertaken by the submitting party. 

C. The AML Act and the No-Action 

Letter Report 

Section 6305(a) of the AML Act 

requires the Director, in consultation 

with the Consulting Parties, to 

undertake an Assessment of whether 

FinCEN should establish a process for 

issuing no-action letters, in response to 

inquiries concerning the application of 

the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA 

PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107–56; 115 Stat. 

272), section 8(s) of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(s)), or any 

other anti-money laundering or 

countering the financing of terrorism 

law (including regulations) to specific 

conduct, including a request for a 

statement whether FinCEN or any 

relevant Federal functional regulator 

intends to take an enforcement action 

regarding such conduct against the 

person making the request.22

Pursuant to the AML Act, the 

Assessment included an analysis of: 

(A) a timeline for the process used to reach 

a final determination by FinCEN, in 

consultation with the relevant Federal 

functional regulators, in response to a request 

by a person for a no-action letter; 

(B) whether improvements in current 

processes are necessary; [and] 

(C) whether a formal no-action letter 

process would help to mitigate or accentuate 

illicit finance risks in the United States 

....23

Additionally, FinCEN analyzed the 

potential impact of no-action letters on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34226 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

24 Given the pending determination of whether 

the no-action letters contemplated in this ANPRM 

will be issued by FinCEN alone, or as crossregulator letters, or both, the term ‘‘no-action letter’’ 

in the context of the questions posed in this 

ANRPM presumes any of these proposed 

combinations, unless otherwise specified. 

25 31 CFR 1010.711(a). 

26 Id. 

27 31 CFR 1010.711(b)–(d). 

28 Id. 

other regulators and law enforcement, 

including specifically considering the 

possible implementation of a crossregulator no-action letter process—that 

is, a process in which a no-action letter 

is simultaneously sought from multiple 

regulators regarding the same entity. 

Section 6305(b) of the AML Act also 

requires the Secretary, in coordination 

with the Coordinating Parties, to submit 

a Report to Congress presenting findings 

and determinations from the 

Assessment and to consider the 

appropriateness of a proposed 

rulemaking to implement those findings 

and determinations. 

On June 28, 2021, FinCEN submitted 

the Report to Congress. FinCEN 

evaluated, among other things, the 

challenges associated with the overlap 

between FinCEN’s enforcement 

authority and other regulators’ 

authorities. In light of the existence of 

parallel and overlapping authorities, 

FinCEN concluded that, while a crossregulator no-action letter process might 

have certain benefits, such a process 

involving multiple agencies and their 

respective authorities would present 

legal and practical challenges. FinCEN 

also analyzed the potential benefits and 

concerns regarding how a no-action 

letter process might impact illicit 

finance risks. This analysis included 

potential procedures or requirements to 

mitigate illicit finance risks. 

FinCEN concluded in the Report that 

it should undertake a rulemaking in 

order to establish a no-action letter 

process to supplement the existing 

forms of regulatory guidance and relief 

that FinCEN already provides. The 

primary benefits of a no-action letter 

process identified in the Report include 

promoting a robust and productive 

dialogue with the public, spurring 

innovation among financial institutions, 

and enhancing the culture of 

compliance and transparency in the 

application and enforcement of the 

BSA. FinCEN also assessed that the 

rulemaking process should include 

consultation with other agencies as 

needed and appropriate, given the 

various areas where FinCEN’s no-action 

letters may affect agencies with parallel 

or delegated authority. 

Through this ANPRM, FinCEN seeks 

public input on whether to establish a 

no-action letter process, what the scope 

of and limits on no-action letters should 

be, and how best to implement the 

process. FinCEN further seeks comment 

on how such a process should interact 

with FinCEN’s existing forms of 

regulatory guidance and relief. 

III. Questions for Comment 

FinCEN invites comments on all 

aspects of the implementation of a noaction letter process, as well as the ways 

in which such a process may interact 

with FinCEN’s existing forms of 

regulatory guidance and relief. FinCEN 

also specifically seeks comments on the 

questions listed below. FinCEN 

encourages commenters to reference 

specific question numbers to facilitate 

FinCEN’s review of the comments. 

I. No-Action Letters 24

Additional Considerations Relating to 

the Report 

(1) FinCEN evaluated several issues in 

the Report on no-action letters, 

including, among other things, the 

viability of a cross-regulator no-action 

letter process, a timeline for considering 

and issuing no-action letters, and the 

extent to which no-action letters would 

mitigate or accentuate illicit finance 

risks. Are there additional 

considerations not identified in the 

Report that FinCEN should weigh in 

evaluating these issues? 

(2) While FinCEN has no legal 

authority to prevent another agency, 

including a Federal functional regulator 

or the Department of Justice, from taking 

an enforcement action under the laws or 

regulations that it administers, are there 

additional points FinCEN should 

consider in assessing the viability of a 

cross-regulator no-action letter process? 

What is the value of establishing a 

FinCEN no-action letter process if other 

regulators with jurisdiction over the 

same entity do not issue a similar noaction letter? 

(3) Would a no-action letter process 

involving only FinCEN be useful? Why 

or why not? 

(4) Are there additional points 

FinCEN should consider regarding the 

timeline proposed in the Report? 

(5) Are there additional points 

FinCEN should consider concerning the 

mitigation or accentuation of illicit 

finance risks beyond those identified in 

the Report? 

(6) To what extent would an 

institution be able to rely upon a noaction letter from FinCEN if the 

institution is subject to oversight and 

examination for the same or similar 

matters by another agency? 

(7) What impact would a FinCEN-only 

no-action letter process or a crossregulator no-action process have on 

State, local, or Tribal regulators? 

(8) Do existing laws and regulations 

permit the issuance of no-action letters, 

or are any additional rules or changes 

required to implement such a process? 

If so, what additional rules or changes 

would be appropriate? 

Contours and Format of a FinCEN NoAction Letter Process 

(9) Should FinCEN establish via 

regulation any limitations on which 

factual circumstances would be 

appropriate for a no-action letter? If yes, 

what should those limitations be? 

(10) Should FinCEN limit the scope of 

no-action letters so that such requests 

may not be submitted during a BSA or 

BSA-related examination—including 

when the subject of the request is 

already a matter under examination, or 

when it becomes a matter under 

examination while the no-action letter 

process is ongoing? 

(11) Would it be valuable for FinCEN 

provide to information from a no-action 

letter request to agencies with delegated 

examination authority under 31 CFR 

1010.810 for the purpose of evaluating 

specific conduct addressed in a noaction letter request, including, among 

other things, to obtain information that 

may inform FinCEN’s response to the 

request? 

(12) In its regulation covering 

administrative rulings, FinCEN requires 

specific information to be included in 

the request for a ruling.25 Should 

FinCEN require similar elements in noaction letter submissions? If so, which? 

What is the burden on the requester in 

gathering this information? 

(13) Are there additional pieces of 

information not addressed in FinCEN’s 

requirements for administrative 

rulings 26 that FinCEN should, or should 

not, request to be included in no-action 

letter submissions? 

(14) In its regulation covering 

administrative rulings, FinCEN 

mandates specific procedural and filing 

requirements for the request.27 Should 

FinCEN include similar requirements 

for no-action letter submissions? If so, 

which? What is the burden on the 

requester in complying with these 

potential requirements? 

(15) Are there additional procedural 

or filing requirements not addressed in 

FinCEN’s requirements for 

administrative rulings 28 that FinCEN 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34227 

should, or should not, require for noaction letter submissions? 

(16) Understanding that typically 

FinCEN will rely on the facts and 

circumstances contained in the request, 

if FinCEN issues a no-action letter to a 

parent corporation, under what 

circumstances should the letter apply to 

some or all subsidiaries, or vice versa? 

Should the requester specify the entities 

in the corporate structure to which the 

no-action letter request applies? 

(17) Should FinCEN limit 

consideration of no-action letter 

requests to written materials? For 

example, should FinCEN require that 

the content of any oral communication 

between FinCEN and the requester 

intended to inform FinCEN’s response 

be submitted in writing to receive 

official consideration? What is the 

burden on the requester in complying 

with this potential requirement? 

FinCEN Jurisdiction and No-Action 

Letters 

It is possible that FinCEN may not be 

able to immediately or definitively 

establish whether FinCEN has 

jurisdiction (i.e., regulatory authority) 

over the entity submitting a no-action 

letter request. This could be a result of, 

among other things, facts and 

circumstances relating to geographic 

location, the product or service 

involved, or the business model of the 

requesting entity. 

(18) Should FinCEN determine that it 

has jurisdiction prior to the issuance of 

no-action letters? 

(19) Should FinCEN issue no-action 

letters where the request is for a ruling 

on whether FinCEN has jurisdiction 

over the submitting party? Is this more 

appropriate for a FinCEN administrative 

ruling request? 

(20) How should the no-action letter 

process apply to agents, third parties, 

domestic affiliates, and foreign affiliates 

that may be conducting anti-money 

laundering or BSA functions on behalf 

of a financial institution either inside or 

outside the United States? 

Changed Circumstances 

(21) Should a change in the overall 

business organization, such as when 

two entities merge or one entity acquires 

another, cause a no-action letter to lose 

its effect? If so, under what 

circumstances? If not, how would such 

a no-action letter continue to apply? 

(22) Should there be any limitations 

on FinCEN’s ability to change the 

positions reflected in prior no-action 

letters? If so, under what circumstances? 

(23) What are the potential impacts on 

the submitting party if, after FinCEN’s 

response, the relevant law or regulation 

changes? 

Revocation 

(24) Should FinCEN publicize 

standards governing the revocation of 

no-action letters, or should revocation 

be determined on a case-by-case basis? 

(25) Under what circumstances 

should no-action letters be 

automatically revoked? (Triggering 

events could include, for example, 

changes to law or regulation, provision 

of false or incomplete information, 

failure to provide requested additional 

information, or violation of potential 

specified procedural requirements.) 

(26) Should no-action letters have 

expiration dates? If so, under what 

circumstances would an expiration date 

be appropriate? 

(27) If a no-action letter is revoked, 

how should FinCEN handle conduct 

that occurred while the no-action letter 

was active? In particular, would a 

rescission result in potential 

enforcement actions only for conduct 

after the rescission date, or would an 

entity also potentially be subject to 

liability for conduct that occurred while 

the now-revoked letter was active? 

Would the answer depend on the basis 

for the revocation? 

(28) What other rules should govern 

the revocation of no-action letters? 

No-Action Letter Denials and 

Withdrawals 

(29) Should FinCEN create an appeals 

or reconsideration process for no-action 

letter denials? What factors and 

procedures should this process involve? 

(30) Should FinCEN publish denials 

on its website? If so, what level of detail 

and type of information should be 

included? For example, should denials 

be anonymized? 

(31) Should FinCEN allow submitting 

entities to withdraw their requests for 

no-action letters? If so, under what 

circumstances and at what point in the 

process should withdrawals be allowed? 

What should the process be for 

withdrawing a request for a no-action 

letter? 

Confidentiality 

(32) Should the no-action letter 

process be confidential during FinCEN’s 

adjudication of a request? 

(33) Should FinCEN maintain the 

confidentiality of no-action letters for a 

period of time, or indefinitely, after 

granting them? Under what 

circumstances should FinCEN maintain 

confidentiality? 

(34) Should no-action letters be used 

as published precedents? If so, under 

what circumstances and conditions 

should they be precedential? Should noaction letters be applicable beyond the 

requesting institutions, and under what 

circumstances and conditions? 

(35) How should FinCEN notify State, 

local, or Tribal regulators of confidential 

requests for cross-regulator no-action 

letters or, if appropriate, confidentially 

issued cross-regulator no-action letters? 

(36) How should FinCEN notify 

Federal, State, local, or Tribal regulators 

of confidential requests for FinCEN-only 

no-action letters or, if appropriate, 

confidentially issued FinCEN-only noaction letters? 

(37) If no-action letters and their 

underlying requests are made public, 

how should FinCEN handle content that 

is confidential or sensitive, such as 

triggering mechanisms for suspicious 

activity report (SAR) reviews? 

Consultation 

(38) What procedures should be put 

in place for FinCEN to consult with 

other relevant regulators or law 

enforcement agencies regarding noaction letter requests? 

(39) How can FinCEN best balance the 

need to consult other regulators or law 

enforcement with the desires of 

submitting parties for confidentiality 

and expediency? 

(40) Should FinCEN require a 

submitting party that is seeking a noaction letter to identify all of its 

regulators? Should FinCEN require that 

institution to identify all of the 

regulators of its parent or subsidiary 

corporations? 

(41) Under what circumstances other 

than consultation should information 

FinCEN obtains through the no-action 

letter process be shared with other 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal 

agencies, including the U.S. Department 

of Justice? 

Other Questions 

(42) What burdens are requesting 

institutions expected to face in 

connection with the implementation of 

a no-action letter process? Please 

identify any burdens with specificity, 

such time spent or salary costs, and 

estimate the dollar costs of these 

burdens if possible. How could FinCEN 

address any such burdens on regulated 

parties? 

(43) What topics, issues, transaction 

types, customer types, geographies, 

products, services, or other matters 

would be expected to be the subject of 

no-action letter requests to FinCEN? 

(44) Are there any other comments 

FinCEN should consider in crafting 

rules to implement a no-action letter 

process? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34228 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

II. The Proposed No-Action Letter and 

Existing Processes 

FinCEN currently provides the 

following forms of regulatory guidance 

or relief: (1) administrative rulings and 

(2) exceptive or exemptive relief, as 

described in Section II.B above. FinCEN 

is seeking comment on how the 

potential no-action letter process may 

complement existing processes. 

(45) What criteria should distinguish 

a no-action letter request from an 

administrative ruling, or from exceptive 

or exemptive relief? 

(46) What value or benefit does a noaction letter bring that is distinct from 

an administrative ruling, or from 

exceptive or exemptive relief? 

(47) Are there improvements that 

could be made to FinCEN’s existing 

processes for issuing administrative 

rulings or exceptive or exemptive relief? 

(48) What sort of guidance would be 

helpful from FinCEN concerning 

administrative rulings or exceptive or 

exemptive relief? 

IV. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This ANPRM is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. It has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

V. Conclusion 

With this ANPRM, FinCEN requests 

input on whether FinCEN should 

implement a no-action letter process 

and, if so, how such a process should 

interact with existing forms of 

regulatory guidance and relief. FinCEN 

seeks input from the public on the 

questions set forth above, including 

from regulated parties; State, local, and 

Tribal governments; law enforcement; 

regulators; and any other interested 

parties. 

By the Department of the Treasury. 

Himamauli Das, 

Acting Director, Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12048 Filed 6–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2018–0013; 

FF07J00000 FXFR13350700640 223] 

RIN 1018–BC96 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska— 

Applicability and Scope; Tongass 

National Forest Submerged Lands; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On May 12, 2022, we 

published a proposed rule on regulatory 

proceedings pertaining to submerged 

lands in the Tongass National Forest. 

The proposed rule contained incorrect 

dates in the preamble. This document 

corrects those dates. 

DATES: The proposed rule incorrectly 

stated that Federal Subsistence Board 

public meetings to discuss and evaluate 

the proposed regulatory changes would 

take place April 12 through 15, 2022. 

With this document, we correct the 

meeting dates. The correct dates are 

January 31 through February 2, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed rule is in 

Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2018–0013 on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Attention: Sue Detwiler, Office of 

Subsistence Management; (907) 786– 

3888 or subsistence@fws.gov. For 

questions specific to National Forest 

System lands, contact Gregory Risdahl, 

Regional Subsistence Program Leader, 

USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region; 

(907) 302–7354 or gregory.risdahl@

usda.gov. Individuals in the United 

States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 

hearing, or have a speech disability may 

dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to 

access telecommunications relay 

services. Individuals outside the United 

States should use the relay services 

offered within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the proposed rule document FR 

Doc. 2022–10053 (87 FR 29061, May 12, 

2022), on page 29061, second column, 

under DATES, correct the first sentence 

to read as follows: Public meeting: The 

Federal Subsistence Board will discuss 

and evaluate proposed regulatory 

changes during public meetings in 

Anchorage, AK, on January 31 through 

February 2, 2023. 

On page 29062, second column, under 

Public Review Process—Comments and 

Public Meetings, correct the first 

sentence of the second paragraph to 

read as follows: The Board will discuss 

and evaluate submitted comments and 

public testimony on this proposed rule 

during public meetings scheduled for 

January 31 through February 2, 2023, in 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

Gregory Risdahl, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA–Forest 

Service. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11781 Filed 6–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P; 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0028; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for Three 

Petitions To List the Yellowstone 

Bison 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition findings 

and initiation of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on three petitions to add 

a distinct population segment of the 

Plains bison (Bison bison bison) in and 

around Yellowstone National Park 

(Yellowstone bison) to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 

review, we find that the petitions 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we plan to initiate a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1