[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27735-27737]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11585]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64418; File No. SR-CHX-2011-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to the Treatment of Customer Orders and the
Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders

May 6, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 26, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CHX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend CHX Article 9, Rule 17 which rule
governs the treatment of customer orders and the prohibition against
trading ahead of customer orders. The text of this proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at (http://www.chx.com), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Article 9, Rule 17 of its rules
which governs the treatment of customer orders and prohibits a CHX
Participant \5\ from proprietarily trading ahead of a customer order.
Specifically, this proposal includes redrafting of the customer order
protection rule language and adds a number of exceptions to the rule in
order to make the rule more consistent with the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority's (``FINRA'') Rule 5320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s), a ``Participant''
means any Participant Firm that holds a valid Trading Permit and any
person associated with a Participant Firm who is registered with the
Exchange under CHX Articles 16 and 17 as a Market Maker Trader or
Institutional Broker Representative, respectively. A Participant
shall be considered a ``member'' of the Exchange for purposes of the
Exchange Act. If a Participant is not a natural person, the
Participant may also be referred to as a ``Participant Firm,'' but
unless the context requires otherwise, the term Participant shall
refer to an individual Participant and/or a Participant Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Order Protection
    Currently, CHX Article 9, Rule 17 states, in part, that a
Participant is prohibited from trading proprietarily while the
Participant personally holds or has knowledge that the Participant (or
any partner, officer or director thereof) holds an unexecuted market or
limit order to buy (sell) such security in the unit of trading for a
customer. The proposed rule change still includes customer order
protection language as it applies to unexecuted market and limit orders
with the clarification of allowing a Participant, who has traded
proprietarily ahead of a customer order, to immediately thereafter
execute the customer order up to the size and at the same or better
price at which it traded for its own account. In other words, in the
event that a Participant trades ahead of an unexecuted customer order
at a price that is equal to or better than the unexecuted customer
order, such Participant is required to execute the customer order at
the price received by the Participant or better; otherwise the
Participant shall be in violation of improperly trading ahead of such
customer order. The proposal also prescribes the minimum ``level'' of
price improvement necessary for a Participant to execute an order on a
proprietary basis when holding an unexecuted customer limit order. For
example, for customer limit orders priced greater than or equal to
$1.00, the minimum amount of price improvement required is $0.01.
    The Exchange also proposes to establish that a Participant must
have written procedures in place governing the execution and priority
of all pending orders that is consistent with the best execution
requirements of CHX Article 17, Rule 3(d) and ensure that these
procedures are consistently applied.
    In furtherance of ensuring customer order protection, the proposed
rule change clarifies Participant obligations in handling marketable
customer orders. In meeting these obligations, a Participant must make
every effort to execute a marketable customer order that it receives
fully and promptly. A Participant that is holding a customer order that
is marketable and has not been immediately executed must make every
effort to cross such order with any other order received by the
Participant on the other side of the market up to the size of such
order at a price that is no less than the best bid and no greater than
the best offer at the time that the subsequent order is received by the
Participant and that is consistent with the terms of the orders. In the
event that a Participant is holding multiple orders on both sides of
the market that have not been executed, the Participant must make every
effort to cross or otherwise execute such orders in a manner that is
reasonable and consistent with the objectives of the proposed rule and
with the terms of the orders.
Large Orders and Institutional Accounts
    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to add several exceptions to
the customer order protection rule. The most notable exception is to
allow Participants to negotiate terms and conditions on the acceptance
of certain large-sized orders (orders of 10,000 shares or more and
greater than $100,000 in value) or orders from institutional accounts
as defined in this proposal as Interpretation and Policy .09 of CHX
Article 9, Rule 17 (collectively referred to as ``Institutional/Large-
Sized Orders''). Such terms and conditions would permit the Participant
to continue to trade along side or ahead of such customer orders if the
customer agrees.
    Specifically, under the proposed rule, a Participant would be
permitted to trade a security on the same side of the market for its
own account at a price that would satisfy a customer order provided
that the Participant provides clear and comprehensive written
disclosure to each customer at account

opening and annually thereafter that: (a) Discloses that the
Participant may trade proprietarily at prices that would satisfy the
customer order, and (b) provides the customer with a meaningful
opportunity to opt in to the CHX Article 9, Rule 17 protections with
respect to all or any portion of its order(s).
    If a customer does not opt in to the protections with respect to
all or any portion of its order(s), the Participant may reasonably
conclude that such customer has consented to the Participant trading a
security on the same side of the market for its own account at a price
that would satisfy the customer's order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As is always the case, customers retain the right to
withdraw consent at any time. Therefore, a Participant's reasonable
conclusion that a customer has consented to the Participant trading
along with such customer's order is subject to further instruction
and modification from the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of providing written disclosure to customers at account
opening and annually thereafter, the proposed rule would permit
Participants to provide clear and comprehensive oral disclosure to, and
obtain consent from, a customer on an order-by-order basis, provided
that the Participant documents who provided such consent and that such
consent evidences the customer's understanding of the terms and
conditions of the order. In addition, where a customer has opted in to
the CHX Article 9, Rule 17 protections, a Participant may still obtain
consent on an order-by-order basis to trade ahead of or along with an
order from that customer, provided that the Participant documents who
provided such consent and that such consent evidences the customer's
understanding of the terms and conditions of the order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While a firm relying on this or any exception must be able
to proffer evidence of its eligibility for and compliance with the
exception, CHX believes that when obtaining consent on an order-by-
order basis, Participants must, at a minimum, document not only the
terms and conditions of the order (e.g., the relative price and size
of the allocated order/percentage split with the customer), but also
the identity of the person at the customer who approved the trade-
along request. For example, the identity of the person must be noted
in a manner that will enable subsequent contact with that person if
a question as to the consent arises (i.e., first names only,
initials, and nicknames will not suffice). A trade along request
would be when a CHX Participant asks to trade for his/her
proprietary account while simultaneously holding and working a
customer order in that same stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No-Knowledge Exception

    The Exchange is also proposing to add a ``no-knowledge'' exception
to its customer order protection rule. The proposed exception would
allow a proprietary trading unit of a CHX Participant firm to continue
trading in a proprietary capacity and at prices that would satisfy
customer orders that were being held by another, separate trading unit
at the Participant firm. The ``no-knowledge'' exception would be
applicable with respect to NMS stocks, as defined in Rule 600 of SEC
Regulation NMS. In order to avail itself of the ``no-knowledge''
exception, a Participant firm must first implement and utilize an
effective system of internal controls (such as appropriate information
barriers) that operate to prevent the proprietary trading unit from
obtaining knowledge of the customer orders that are held at a separate
trading unit. For example, a CHX Institutional Broker \8\ that conducts
both a proprietary and agency brokerage business and has implemented
and utilized an effective system of internal controls, the ``walled
off'' proprietary desk(s) of such Institutional Broker would be
permitted to trade at prices that would satisfy the customer orders
held by the agency brokerage desk without any requirement that such
proprietary executions trigger an obligation to fill pending customer
orders at the same price. The ``no-knowledge'' exception would also
apply to a Participant firm's market-making unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to CHX Article 1, Rule 1(n), an Institutional
Broker means a member of the Exchange who is registered as an
institutional broker and has satisfied all Exchange requirements to
operate as an institutional broker on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Participant that structures its order handling practices in NMS
stocks to permit its proprietary and/or market-making desk to trade at
prices that would satisfy customer orders held as [sic] a separate
trading unit must disclose in writing to its customers, at account
opening and annually thereafter, a description of the manner in which
customer orders are handled by the Participant and the circumstances
under which the Participant may trade proprietarily at its market-
making desk at prices that would satisfy the customer order.
    To the extent a Participant firm structures its order handling
practices in NMS stocks to ``wall off'' customer order flow from its
proprietary/market-making desks, CHX is proposing to require the firm
to disclose that fact in writing to its customers. This disclosure
would include a description of the manner in which customer orders are
handled and the circumstances under which the firm may trade
proprietarily at prices that would satisfy a customer order. The
proposed disclosure would be required at account opening and on an
annual basis thereafter and may be combined with the disclosure and
negative consent statement permitted in connection with the proposed
Institutional/Large-Sized Order exception.
Riskless Principal Exception
    The Exchange's proposal also clarifies that the obligations under
this rule shall not apply to a Participant's proprietary trade if such
proprietary trade is for the purposes of facilitating the execution, on
a riskless principal basis, of another order from a customer (whether
its own customer or the customer of another broker-dealer), provided
that the Participant: (a) Submits a report, contemporaneously with the
execution of the facilitated order, identifying the trade as riskless
principal to CHX and (b) has written policies and procedures to ensure
that riskless principal transactions relied upon for this exception
comply with applicable CHX rules. At a minimum these policies and
procedures must require that the customer order was received prior to
the offsetting principal transaction, and that the offsetting principal
transaction is at the same price as the customer order exclusive of any
markup or markdown, commission equivalent or other fee and is allocated
to a riskless principal or customer account in a consistent manner and
within 60 seconds of execution.
    Participants must have supervisory systems in place that produce
records that enable the Participant and CHX to reconstruct accurately,
readily, and in a time-sequenced manner all orders on which a
Participant relies in claiming this exception.
ISO Exception
    The filing also clarifies that a Participant shall be exempt from
the obligation to execute a customer order in a manner consistent with
the customer order protection rule with regard to trading for its own
account that is the result of an intermarket sweep order routed in
compliance with Rule 600(b)(30)(ii) of SEC Regulation NMS (``ISO'')
where the customer order is received after the Participant routed the
ISO. Where a Participant routes an ISO to facilitate a customer order
and that customer has consented to not receiving the better prices
obtained by the ISO, the Participant also shall be exempt with respect
to any trading for its own account that is the result of the ISO with
respect to the consenting customer's order.
Odd Lot and Bona Fide Error Exception
    In addition, the Exchange proposes applying an exception for a
firm's proprietary trade that (1) Offsets a

customer odd lot order (i.e., an order less than one round lot, which
is typically 100 shares); or (2) corrects a bona fide error. With
respect to bona fide errors, Participant firms would be required to
demonstrate and document the basis upon which a transaction meets the
bona fide error exception. For purposes of this rule, the definition of
a ``bona fide error'' is as defined in SEC Regulation NMS's exemption
for error correction transactions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8, 2007), 72
FR 32926 (June 14, 2007) (Order Exempting Certain Error Correction
Transactions from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Outside Normal Market Hours
    This proposal also expands the customer order protection
requirements to apply at all times that a customer order is executable
by the Participant, even outside the period of normal market hours.
Thus, customers would have the benefit of the customer order protection
rules at all times where such order is executable by the Participant
firm, subject to any applicable exceptions. This exception shall apply
to those Participants that accept customer orders after normal market
hours.
2. Statutory Basis
    CHX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that CHX rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. CHX believes that amending its customer order
protection rule as proposed, will bring it more in line with industry
standards, most notably FINRA's Rule 5320, which we believe will in
turn reduce the complexity of customer order protection for those firms
subject to the rules of multiple trading venues. CHX also believes that
changing its rule as proposed will maintain the necessary protection of
customer orders without imposing any undue regulatory costs on industry
participants.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior
to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-
regulatory organization to submit to the Commission written notice
of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CHX will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be issued no later than 90 days from
the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register.
Implementation of the rule will take effect no later than 90 days from
the date when the Exchange issues the Regulatory Notice.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2011-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-
2011-08 and should be submitted on or before June 2, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy.
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11585 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 10391-10400] [FR Doc No: 2012-3978]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 382 and 391

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0073] RIN 2126-AB35

Harmonizing Schedule I Drug Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is  correcting a Final Rule that appeared in the Federal Register on  January 30, 2012 (77 FR 4479), which amended the physical  qualifications for drivers and the instructions for the medical  examination report to clarify that drivers may not use Schedule I drugs  and be qualified to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) under any  circumstances.

DATES: Effective February 22, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,  call or e-mail Angela Ward, Nurse Consultant, Medical Programs Office,  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;  email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA's recent rule harmonizing Schedule I  drug requirements included several changes to the Instructions to the  Medical Examination Report for Commercial Driver Fitness Determination,  form 649-F (6045). Although no changes were to be made to the form  itself, due to a printing error, several changes were inadvertently  made. The following correction reverses those changes.     In FR Doc. 2012-1905 appearing on page 4483 in the Federal Register  of Monday, January 30, 2012, in Instruction 8, correct the form in  Sec.  391.43(f) to read as follows:

Sec.  391.43  Medical examination; certificate of physical examination.

* * * * *     (f) * * * BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE12.007

* * * * *

    Issued on: January 31, 2012. Larry Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy. [FR Doc. 2012-3978 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-C


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5204-5206]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01576]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1196; FRL-10004-28-OAR]

Recent Postings of Broadly Applicable Alternative Test Methods

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces the broadly applicable alternative
test method approval decisions that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) made under and in support of New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each alternative
test method approval document is available at https://www.epa.gov/emc/
broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-

methods. For questions about this document, contact Mrs. Lula H.
Melton, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-0516; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical
questions about individual alternative test method decisions, refer to
the contact person identified in the individual approval document(s).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this document apply to me?

    This document will be of interest to entities regulated under 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 60, 61, and 63; state, local,
and tribal agencies; and the EPA Regional offices responsible for
implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 60,
61, and 63.

B. How can I get copies of this information?

    You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test
method approval documents at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods.

II. Background

    This document identifies broadly applicable alternative test method
approval decisions made by the EPA in 2019 under the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR part 60 and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) programs, 40 CFR parts
61 and 63; see Table 1. Source owners and operators may voluntarily use
these broadly applicable alternative test methods in lieu of otherwise
specified reference test methods. Use of these broadly applicable
alternative test methods are not intended to and should not change the
applicable emission standards.
    The Administrator has the authority to approve the use of
alternative test methods for compliance with requirements under 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63. This authority is found in 40 CFR 60.8(b)(3),
61.13(h)(1)(ii), and 63.7(e)(2)(ii). Additional and similar authority
can be found in 40 CFR 65.158(a)(2). The criteria for approval and
procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative
test methods are explained in a previous Federal Register document
published at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007) and located at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods.
As explained in this document, we will announce approvals for broadly
applicable alternative test methods at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods and publish an annual
document that summarizes approvals for broadly applicable alternative
test methods during the preceding year.
    As also explained in the January 30, 2007 document, our approval
decisions involve thorough technical reviews of numerous source-
specific requests for alternatives and modifications to test methods
and procedures. Based on these reviews, we have often found that these
modifications or alternatives would be equally valid and appropriate to
apply to other sources within a particular class, category, or
subcategory. Consequently, we have concluded that where a method
modification or an alternative method is clearly broadly applicable to
a class, category, or subcategory of sources, it is both equitable and
efficient to approve its use for all appropriate sources and situations
at the same time.
    Use of approved alternative test methods are not mandatory but
rather permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but
may choose to do so in appropriate circumstances. As specified in 40
CFR 63.7(f)(5), however, a source owner or operator electing to use an
alternative method for 40 CFR part 63 standards must continue to use
the alternative method until otherwise authorized. Source owners or
operators should, therefore, review the specific broadly applicable
alternative method approval decision at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods before electing to
employ any alternative method.

III. Approved Alternative Test Methods and Modifications to Test
Methods

    This document specifies three broadly applicable alternative test
methods that the EPA approved between January 1, 2019, and December 31,
2019. The alternative method decision letter/memo number, the reference
method affected, sources allowed to use this alternative, and the
modification or alternative method allowed are summarized in Table 1 of
this document. A summary of approval documents was previously made
available on our Technology Transfer Network between January 1, 2019,
and December 31, 2019. For more detailed information, please refer to
the complete copies of these approval documents available at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods.
    As also explained in our January 30, 2007 document, we will revisit
approvals of alternative test methods in response to written requests
or objections indicating that a particular approved alternative test
method either should not be broadly applicable or that its use should
be limited in some way. Any objection to a broadly applicable
alternative test method, as well as the resolution of that objection,
will be announced at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods and in a subsequent Federal Register
document. If we decide to retract a broadly applicable test method, we
will likely consider the need for an appropriate transition period for
users either to request case-by-case approval or to transition to an
approved method.

    Dated: January 6, 2020.
Richard A. Wayland,
Director, Air Quality Assessment Division.

  Table 1--Approved Alternative Test Methods and Modifications to Test Methods Referenced in or Published Under
             Appendices in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 Posted Between January 2019 and December 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Alternative method decision      As an alternative or
      letter/memo number           modification to . . .            For . . .                You may . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALT-133.......................  Methods 6, 8, 15A, and 16A  Sources subject to 40 CFR  Use procedures specified
                                                             part 60 federal rules      in SW-846 Method 9056A
                                                             that require sample        and the conditions
                                                             analysis using methods     specified in the
                                                             6, 8, 15A, or 16A.         Agency's approval letter
                                                                                dated August 5, 2019.

ALT-134.......................  Method 28 WHH-Measurement   Sources subject to 40 CFR  Use alternative
                                 of Particulate Emissions    part 60, subpart QQQQ-     certification testing
                                 and Heating Efficiency of   Standards of Performance   procedures in the
                                 Wood-Fired Hydronic         for New Residential        Canadian Standards
                                 Heating Appliances.         Hydronic Heaters and       Association (CSA) B415.1-
                                                             Forced Air Furnaces.       10 test method with the
                                                                                caveats stipulated in
                                                                                the Agency's approval
                                                                                letter dated August 19,
                                                                                2019.
ALT-135.......................  Method 23-Determination of  Sources subject to 40 CFR  Use toluene in lieu of
                                 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-  part 63, subpart X-        methylene chloride for
                                 Dioxins and                 National Emission          field recovery rinses
                                 Polychlorinated             Standards for Hazardous    for Method 23 sampling
                                 Dibenzofurans from          Air Pollutants from        trains with the provisos
                                 Stationary Sources.         Secondary Lead Smelting.   specified in the
                                                                                Agency's approval letter
                                                                                dated September 25,
                                                                                2019.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Source owners or operators should review the specific broadly
applicable alternative method approval letter at https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods before
electing to employ it.

[FR Doc. 2020-01576 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45712]
[DOCID:fr15au07-30]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-8455-4]

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The State of Arkansas has applied to EPA for Final
Authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant
Final Authorization to the State of Arkansas. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by September 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the
materials submitted by the State of Arkansas during normal business
hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality 8101 Interstate 30, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72219-8913,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final
rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. E7-16012 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


% Golfer adult 4h/day dermal exposure
% Dose to reach average cpfos conc in blood = 0.004 ug/L
% Sept 1, 2016
% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;		% Set BW to a fixed value
BWST=69;	 % Set BW
PREG=0;		% Not pregnant
DZONE = 1;	% Turn dermal exposure on
KDIS = 0.0;	% Daily dissipation
TSTOP=504;	%Simulation time = 21 days work week

% Dermal exposure
SAF=0.5;	 	% Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.
FAD=1;     	% Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.
%DERM =308;		% dose in ug/kg
DERM = 1.3;
D3=7;  %DAYS/WEEK
P2=4; %HRS/DAY
S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2=21; %21 day exposure

prepare @clear@all
start @NoCallback
simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5 _blauc*350.6 _blauco*334.5 _blaucavg*350.6 _blaucoavg*334.5];	%conc unit = ug/L

save simall @file='golfer_adult_cc' @format=ascii


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66472]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21013]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4720-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated July 14, 2023, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 21, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident for
this disaster has been expanded to include landslides and mudslides.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-21013 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11207-11210]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-129]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61651]

Policy Statement on Obtaining and Retaining Beneficial Ownership
Information for Anti-Money Laundering Purposes

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Policy statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is issuing a policy
statement to provide guidance on obtaining and retaining beneficial
ownership information for anti-money laundering purposes.

DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Gonzalez<PHONE_NUMBER>), John
J. Fahey<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Emily Westerberg Russell<PHONE_NUMBER>),
Office of the Chief Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission is
issuing a policy statement that provides guidance on obtaining and
retaining beneficial ownership information for anti-money laundering
purposes. This guidance is being issued jointly with the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision,
and the National Credit Union Administration, and in consultation with
the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The guidance
provided in this policy statement clarifies and consolidates existing
regulatory expectations for obtaining beneficial ownership information
for certain accounts and customer relationships.

Regulatory Requirements

    The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'')
regarding notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities for public
comment, and prior publication are not applicable to general statements
of policy, such as this.\1\ Similarly, the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act,\2\ which apply

only when notice and comment are required by the APA or another
statute, are not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 5 U.S.C. 553.
    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 601-602.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

    Dated: March 5, 2010
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.

Text of the Guidance

Guidance on Obtaining and Retaining Beneficial Ownership Information

    The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), along with the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift
Supervision, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, are issuing
this guidance, in consultation with staff of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, to clarify and consolidate existing regulatory
expectations for obtaining beneficial ownership information for certain
accounts and customer relationships. Information on beneficial
ownership in account relationships provides another tool for financial
institutions to better understand and address money laundering and
terrorist financing risks, protect themselves from criminal activity,
and assist law enforcement with investigations and prosecutions.

Background

    The cornerstone of a strong Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering
(BSA/AML) compliance program is the adoption and implementation of
internal controls, which include comprehensive customer due diligence
(CDD) policies, procedures, and processes for all customers,
particularly those that present a high risk for money laundering or
terrorist financing.\1\ The requirement that a financial institution
know its customers, and the risks presented by its customers, is basic
and fundamental to the development and implementation of an effective
BSA/AML compliance program. Specifically, conducting appropriate CDD
assists an institution in identifying, detecting, and evaluating
unusual or suspicious activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This guidance does not alter or supersede previously issued
regulations, rulings, or guidance related to Customer Identification
Program (CIP) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, a financial institution's CDD processes should be
commensurate with its BSA/AML risk, with particular focus on high risk
customers. CDD processes should be developed to identify customers who
pose heightened money laundering or terrorist financing risks, and
should be enhanced in accordance with the institution's assessment of
those risks.
    Heightened risks can arise with respect to beneficial owners of
accounts because nominal account holders can enable individuals and
business entities to conceal the identity of the true owner of assets
or property derived from or associated with criminal activity.
Moreover, criminals, money launderers, tax evaders, and terrorists may
exploit the privacy and confidentiality surrounding some business
entities, including shell companies and other vehicles designed to
conceal the nature and purpose of illicit transactions and the
identities of the persons associated with them. Consequently,
identifying the beneficial owner(s) of some legal entities may be
challenging, as the characteristics of these entities often effectively
shield the legal identity of the owner. However, such identification
may be important in detecting suspicious activity and in providing
useful information to law enforcement.
    A financial institution may consider implementing these policies
and procedures on an enterprise-wide basis. This may include sharing or
obtaining beneficial ownership information across business lines,
separate legal entities within an enterprise, and affiliated support
units. To encourage cost effectiveness, enhance efficiency, and
increase availability of potentially relevant information, AML staff
may find it useful to cross-check for beneficial ownership information
in data systems maintained within the financial institution for other
purposes, such as credit underwriting, marketing, or fraud detection.

Customer Due Diligence

    As part of an institution's BSA/AML compliance program, a financial
institution should establish and maintain CDD procedures that are
reasonably designed to identify and verify the identity of beneficial
owners \2\ of an account, as appropriate, based on the institution's
evaluation of risk pertaining to an account.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The definition of a ``beneficial owner'' under FinCEN's
regulations specific to due diligence programs for private banking
accounts and for correspondent accounts for foreign financial
institutions is the individual(s) who have a level of control over,
or entitlement to, the funds or assets in the account that, as a
practical matter, enables the individual(s), directly or indirectly,
to control, manage, or direct the account. The ability to fund the
account or the entitlement to the funds of the account alone,
however, without any corresponding authority to control, manage, or
direct the account (such as in the case of a minor child
beneficiary), does not cause the individual to be a beneficial
owner. This definition may be useful for purposes of this guidance.
See, e.g., 31 CFR 103.175(b).
    \3\ The final rules implementing Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT
Act similarly provide that, based on a financial institution's risk
assessment of a new account opened by a customer that is not an
individual, a financial institution may need to take additional
steps to verify the identity of the customer by seeking information
about individuals with ownership or control over the account,
including signatories. See, e.g., 31 CFR 103.121(b)(2)(ii)(C). In
addition, a financial institution may need to look through the
account in connection with customer due diligence procedures
required under other provisions of its BSA compliance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, CDD procedures may include the following:
     Determining whether the customer is acting as an agent for
or on behalf of another, and if so, obtaining information regarding the
capacity in which and on whose behalf the customer is acting.
     Where the customer is a legal entity that is not publicly
traded in the United States, such as an unincorporated association, a
private investment company (PIC), trust or foundation, obtaining
information about the structure or ownership of the entity so as to
allow the institution to determine whether the account poses heightened
risk.
     Where the customer is a trustee, obtaining information
about the trust structure to allow the institution to establish a
reasonable understanding of the trust structure and to determine the
provider of funds and any persons or entities that have control over
the funds or have the power to remove the trustees.
    With respect to accounts that have been identified by an
institution's CDD procedures as posing a heightened risk, these
accounts should be subjected to enhanced due diligence (EDD) that is
reasonably designed to enable compliance with the requirements of the
BSA. This may include steps, in accordance with the level of risk
presented, to identify and verify beneficial owners, to reasonably
understand the sources and uses of funds in the account, and to
reasonably understand the relationship between the customer and the
beneficial owner.
    Certain trusts, corporate entities, shell entities,\4\ and PICs are
examples of customers that may pose heightened risk. In addition,
FinCEN rules establish particular due diligence requirements concerning
beneficial owners in the areas of private banking and foreign
correspondent accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/
AdvisoryOnShells_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CDD and EDD information should be used for monitoring
purposes and to determine whether there are discrepancies

between information obtained regarding the account's intended purpose
and expected account activity and the actual sources of funds and uses
of the account.

Private Banking \5\

    Under FinCEN's regulations, a ``covered financial institution'' \6\
must establish and maintain a due diligence program that includes
policies, procedures, and controls reasonably designed to detect and
report known or suspected money laundering or suspicious activity
conducted through or involving private banking accounts. This
requirement applies to private banking accounts established,
maintained, administered, or managed in the United States.\7\ The
regulation currently covers private banking accounts at depository
institutions, securities broker-dealers, futures commission merchants
and introducing brokers in commodities, and mutual funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``private banking account'' is defined in 31 CFR
103.175(o), as an account (or any combination of accounts)
maintained at a covered financial institution that: (1) Requires a
minimum aggregate deposit of funds or other assets of not less than
$1,000,000; (2) is established on behalf of or for the benefit of
one or more non-U.S. persons who are direct or beneficial owners of
the account; and (3) is assigned to, or is administered or managed
by, in whole or in part, an officer, employee, or agent of a covered
financial institution acting as a liaison between the covered
financial institution and the direct or beneficial owner of the
account. Private banking accounts that do not fit within this
definition should be subject to the general CDD procedures,
including, as appropriate, EDD procedures discussed above.
    \6\ 31 CFR 103.175(f)(1).
    \7\ See, generally, 31 CFR 103.178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other actions, as part of their due diligence program,
institutions that offer private banking services must take reasonable
steps to ascertain the source(s) of the customer's wealth and the
anticipated activity of the account, as well as potentially take into
account the geographic location, the customer's corporate structure,
and public information.\8\ Moreover, reasonable steps must be taken to
identify nominal and beneficial owners of private banking accounts.\9\
Obtaining beneficial ownership information concerning the types of
accounts listed above may require the application of EDD procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, 31 CFR 103.178 (b)(3) and (b)(4). See also, Federal
Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Exam Manual,
Private Banking--Overview. Although the FFIEC Exam Manual is issued
by the federal banking regulators regarding AML requirements
applicable to banks, it contains guidance that may be of interest to
securities and futures firms.
    \9\ 31 CFR 103.178(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special rules apply for senior foreign political figures.\10\ A
review of private banking account relationships is required in part to
determine whether the nominal or beneficial owners are senior foreign
political figures. Covered financial institutions should establish
policies, procedures, and controls that include reasonable steps to
ascertain the status of a nominal or beneficial owner as a senior
foreign political figure. This may include obtaining information on
employment status and sources of income, as well as consulting news
sources and checking references where appropriate.\11\ Accounts for
senior foreign political figures require, in all instances, EDD that is
reasonably designed to detect and report transactions that may involve
the proceeds of foreign corruption.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A senior foreign political figure is a current or former
senior official in the executive, legislative, administrative,
military, or judicial branches of a foreign government (whether
elected or not), senior official of a major foreign political party
or a senior executive of a foreign government-owned commercial
enterprise, a corporation or other entity formed by or for the
benefit of such individuals, or any immediate family member or
widely and publically known close associate to such individuals. 31
CFR 103.175(r).
    \11\ See, e.g., FFIEC Exam Manual, Private Banking Due Diligence
Program (Non-U.S. Persons).
    \12\ 31 CFR 103.178 (b)(2) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to private banking accounts, a covered financial
institution's failure to take reasonable steps to identify the nominal
and beneficial owners of an account generally would be viewed as a
violation of the requirements of 31 CFR 103.178.

Foreign Correspondent Accounts

    FinCEN's regulations also require covered financial institutions
\13\ to establish a due diligence program that includes appropriate,
specific, risk-based, and, where necessary, enhanced policies,
procedures and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and
report, on an ongoing basis, any known or suspected money laundering
activity conducted through or involving any correspondent account \14\
established, maintained, administered, or managed in the United States
for a foreign financial institution.\15\ Under these regulations,
enhanced due diligence is required for correspondent accounts \16\
established, maintained, administered, or managed in the United States,
for foreign banks that operate under: (1) An offshore banking license;
(2) a banking license issued by a country that has been designated as
non-cooperative with international anti-money laundering principles or
procedures; or (3) a banking license issued by a country designated by
the Secretary of the Treasury (under delegation to the Director of
FinCEN, and in consultation with the Federal banking agencies, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission) as warranting special measures due to money laundering
concerns.\17\ Enhanced due diligence is designed to be risk-based, with
flexibility in its implementation to allow covered financial
institutions to obtain and retain this information based on risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 31 CFR 103.175(f)(1). The definition of covered financial
institution discussed above applies to both the private banking and
correspondent account regulations.
    \14\ 31 CFR 103.175(d). Generally, a ``correspondent account''
is defined as an account established for a foreign financial
institution to receive deposits from, or to make payments or other
disbursements on behalf of, the foreign financial institution, or to
handle other financial transactions related to such foreign
financial institution. 31 CFR 103.175(d)(1).
    \15\ 31 CFR 103.176(a).
    \16\ For purposes of the enhanced due diligence requirements for
certain foreign banks and the foreign shell bank prohibitions
discussed herein, a ``correspondent account'' is defined as an
account established for a foreign bank to receive deposits from, or
to make payments or other disbursements on behalf of, the foreign
bank, or to handle other financial transactions related to such
foreign bank. 31 CFR 103.175(d)(1)(ii).
    \17\ See 31 CFR 103.176(b) and(c) for the full text of this
provision. Special Due Diligence Programs for Certain Foreign
Accounts, 72 FR 44768-44775 (August 9, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to correspondent accounts for such foreign banks, a
covered financial institution's risk-based EDD should obtain
information, as appropriate, from the foreign bank about the identity
of any person with authority to direct transactions through any
correspondent account that is a payable-through account, as well as the
source and beneficial owner of funds or other assets in a payable-
through account. A payable-through account is a correspondent account
maintained by a covered financial institution for a foreign bank by
means of which the foreign bank permits its customers to engage, either
directly or through a subaccount, in banking activities usual in
connection with the business of banking in the United States.\18\
Covered financial institutions may elect to use a questionnaire or
conduct a review of the transaction history for the respondent bank in
collecting the information required.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, 31 CFR 103.176(b)(1)(iii)(B).
    \19\ ``An Assessment of the Final Rule Implementing Enhanced Due
Diligence Provisions for Accounts for Certain Foreign Banks, p. 4.
(March 2009). http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/Special_
Due_Diligence_Program.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, covered financial institutions \20\ are prohibited
from opening and maintaining correspondent accounts \21\ for foreign
shell banks.\22\ Covered financial institutions that offer foreign
correspondent accounts must take reasonable steps to ensure the account
is not being used to indirectly provide banking services to foreign
shell banks.\23\ The covered financial institution must identify the
owners \24\ of foreign banks whose shares are not publicly traded and
record the name and address of a person in the United States that is
authorized to be an agent to accept service of legal process.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For purposes of the shell bank prohibitions, a covered
institution generally includes: U.S. banks, savings associations,
credit unions, private bankers, and trust companies; branches and
agencies of foreign banks; Edge Act corporations; and securities
broker-dealers. 31 CFR 103.175(f)(2).
    \21\ For purposes of the foreign shell bank prohibitions, a
``correspondent account'' is defined as an account established for a
foreign bank to receive deposits from, or to make payments or other
disbursements on behalf of, the foreign bank, or to handle other
financial transactions related to such foreign bank. 31 CFR
103.175(d)(1)(ii).
    \22\ See, 31 CFR 103.177.
    \23\ 31 CFR 103.177(a)(1)(ii).
    \24\ For purposes of 31 CFR 103.177, ``owner'' is defined at 31
CFR 103.175(l). Similarly, under the enhanced due diligence
provisions of the correspondent account rule, the covered financial
institution may need to identify the owners of foreign banks whose
shares are not publicly-traded. See, 31 CFR 103.176(b)(3). An
``owner'' is defined for this purpose to include any person who
directly or indirectly owns, controls, or has the power to vote 10
percent or more of any class of securities. See, 31 CFR
103.176(b)(3)(ii).
    \25\ See 31 CFR 103.177(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to foreign correspondent accounts, a covered financial
institution's failure to maintain records identifying the owners of
non-publicly traded foreign banks could be viewed as a violation of the
requirements of 31 CFR 103.177.
    For questions about this guidance, please contact FinCEN's
Regulatory Helpline at<PHONE_NUMBER> or your appropriate regulatory
agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-5075 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6763-6765]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02421]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0756; FRL-9941-11-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from gasoline dispensing facilities and stationary gas
turbines. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 11, 2016 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comments by March 10, 2016. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0756 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972
3073<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency              Rule No.                Rule title                Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD.........................            2.22  Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.        01/14/14        06/26/15
YSAQMD.........................            2.34  Stationary Gas Turbines........        11/12/14        06/26/15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 13, 2015, the EPA determined that the submittal for
YSAQMD Rules 2.22 and 2.34 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 2.22 into the SIP on January
23, 2003 (68 FR 3190), and an earlier version of Rule 2.34 into the SIP
on September 3, 1998 (63 FR 46892).

C. What is the purpose of the rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The revisions to Rule
2.22 exempt certain categories of facilities that have other vapor
recovery control measures in place, require aboveground storage tanks
to install additional approved vapor recovery systems, require Phase II
enhanced vapor recovery systems at all dispensing facilities, and
require operators to conduct appropriate inspection and maintenance
procedures.
    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which
harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires States to submit regulations that control NOX
emissions. The revisions to Rule 2.34 define new operation requirements
during start-up and shut-down of units and during short-term
exceedances under specific circumstances, and require facilities to
install continuous emissions monitoring systems.
    The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information
about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document

as well as each major source of VOCs and NOX in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA sections
182(b)(2)). YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as
Severe for the 2008 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (40
CFR 81.305). Therefore, Rules 2.22 and 2.34 must implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations'' (``the Bluebook,'' U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised
January 11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies'' (``the Little Bluebook'', EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to
the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule'' (``the NOX
Supplement,'' 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992).
    5. ``Design Criteria for Stage 1 Vapor Control Systems,'' (EPA-
450/R-75-102).
    6. ``Technical Guidance--Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,''
(EPA-450/3-91-022).
    7. ``Restatement to Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015).
    8. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines,'' (EPA-453/R-93-007).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, Reasonably Available Control
Measures, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our
evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule(s)

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by March 10, 2016, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on April 11, 2016. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP. These rules will supersede
the existing SIP-approved rules.
    Please note that if the 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, the EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
YSAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 11, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA
can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: December 24, 2015.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(199)(i)(E)(3),
(c)(303)(i)(B)(3), and (c)(463)(i)(B)(2) and (3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (199) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) * * *
    (3) Previously approved on September 3, 1998, in paragraph
(c)(199)(i)(E)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(463)(i)(B)(3) of this section, Rule 2.34, ``Stationary
Gas Turbines,'' adopted on July 13, 1994.
* * * * *
    (303) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (3) Previously approved on January 23, 2003, in paragraph
(c)(303)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(463)(i)(B)(2) of this section, Rule 2.22, ``Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities,'' revised on June 12, 2002.
* * * * *
    (463) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 2.22, ``Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,'' revised on
January 14, 2015.
    (3) Rule 2.34, ``Stationary Gas Turbines,'' revised on November 12,
2014.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-02421 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P