Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary Self-Disclosures and Revised Notice of the Institution of Administrative Enforcement Proceedings, 66777-66780 [2012-27206]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(3) Airbus A300–600 Airworthiness
Limitation Items Document AI/SE–M2/
95A.0502/06, Revision 11, dated April 2006.
(4) Airbus A300–600 Airworthiness
Limitation Items Document AI/SE–M2/
95A.1310/07, Issue 13, dated October 2010.
(5) Airbus A300–600 Airworthiness
Limitation Items Document AI/SE–M2/
95A.1310/07, Revision 12, dated June 2008.
(6) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitation
Items Document AI/SE–M2/95A.1309/07,
Issue 8, dated October 2010.
(7) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitation
Items Document AI/SE–M2/95A.1309/07,
Revision 7, dated June 2008.
(8) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations
Items Document AI/SE–M2/95A.0263/06,
Revision 6, dated April 2006.
(9) Airbus Industrie A300 Structural
Inspection Document, Revision 2, dated June
1994.
(10) Airbus Temporary Revision 13.1,
dated February 2011, to Airbus A300–600
Airworthiness Limitation Items Document
AI/SE–M2/95A.1310/07, Revision 13, dated
October 2010.
(11) Airbus Temporary Revision 3.1, dated
April 2006, including attachment, dated
April 2006, and including attachments dated
September 2005, to Airbus A300
Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document
SEM2/95A.1090/05, Issue 3, dated September
2005.
(12) Airbus Temporary Revision 6.1,
including pages 1 and 2 of Section D and
page 1 of Section E, dated November 2006,
to Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations
Items Document, AI/SE–M2/95A.0263/06,
Issue 6, dated April 2006.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October
30, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–27126 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Background
15 CFR Parts 764 and 766
[Docket No. 120207107–2565–01]
RIN 0694–AF59
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary
Self-Disclosures and Revised Notice of
the Institution of Administrative
Enforcement Proceedings
Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
require that the final, comprehensive
narrative account required in voluntary
self-disclosures (VSDs) of violations of
the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) be submitted to the Office of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 06, 2012
Jkt 229001
Export Enforcement within 180 days of
the initial VSD notification. This
proposed rule also would authorize the
use of delivery services other than
registered or certified mail for providing
notice of the issuance of a charging
letter instituting an administrative
enforcement proceeding under the EAR.
It also would remove the phrase ‘‘if
delivery is refused’’ from a provision
relating to determining the date of
service of notice of a charging letter’s
issuance based on an attempted delivery
to the respondent’s last known address.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is
proposing these changes to be better
able to resolve administrative
enforcement proceedings in a timely
manner and provide more efficient
notice of administrative charging letters.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than January 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. The identification
number for this rulemaking is BIS–
2012–0043.
• By email directly to
publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include
RIN 0694–AF59 in the subject line.
• By mail or delivery to Regulatory
Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 2099B, 14th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694–AF59.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Special Agent Kirk Flashner, Office of
Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry
and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room H4514, 14th Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Tel: (202) 482–
1208. Facsimile: (202) 482–5889.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS), Office of Export Enforcement
(OEE), investigates possible violations of
the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) and orders, licenses, and
authorizations issued thereunder. These
investigations may result in allegations
of violations that may be settled,
adjudicated in an administrative
enforcement proceeding, or referred to
the Department of Justice for possible
criminal prosecution. This rule
proposes three changes to the EAR. One
change addresses voluntary selfdisclosures in connection with OEE’s
conduct of investigations. The other two
changes address service of notice in
administrative enforcement
proceedings.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66777
Proposed Change Regarding Voluntary
Self-Disclosures
Section 764.5 of the EAR provides a
procedure whereby parties that believe
that they may have committed a
violation of the EAR can voluntarily
disclose the facts of the potential
violations to OEE. Such disclosures that
meet the requirements of § 764.5
typically are afforded ‘‘great weight’’ by
BIS, relative to other mitigating factors,
in determining what administrative
sanctions, if any, to seek. Section 764.5
requires an initial notification, which is
to include a description of the general
nature and extent of the suspected
violations, and is followed at a later date
by a thorough review and narrative
account of the suspected violations,
including all relevant supporting
documentation. If the person making the
initial notification subsequently
completes the narrative account, the
disclosure is deemed to have been
submitted to OEE on the date of the
initial notification. The date of the
initial notification may be significant
because information provided to OEE
may only be considered a voluntary
disclosure if the information ‘‘is
received by OEE for review prior to the
time that OEE or another United States
Government agency has learned of the
same or substantially similar
information from another source and
has commenced an investigation or
inquiry in connection with that
information.’’ 15 CFR 764.5(b)(3).
Currently, § 764.5 of the EAR does not
include a specific time limit within
which a narrative account must be
submitted to OEE. Too often, initial
notifications are not promptly followed
by comprehensive narrative accounts,
and as a result, OEE must maintain open
files on voluntary disclosures for
extended periods of time without
making sufficient progress towards
resolving the matter disclosed. To
address these situations and promote
expeditious resolution of self-disclosed
violations, BIS proposes to set a 180-day
deadline for persons who have
submitted an initial notification to
complete and submit the final narrative
report to OEE. The Director of OEE
could extend this 180-day time
deadline, at his or her discretion, if U.S.
Government interests would be served
by an extension or upon a showing by
the party making the disclosure that
more time is reasonably necessary to
complete the narrative account. Some
illustrative examples of circumstances
that might warrant additional time
include the following.
• Records or information from
multiple entities and/or jurisdictions are
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
66778
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
needed to complete the narrative
account.
• Material changes occur in the
business, such as a bankruptcy, large
layoffs, or a corporate acquisition or
restructuring, and present difficulties in
gaining access to, or analysis of,
information needed to complete the
narrative account.
• A pending U.S. Government
determination (such as a commodity
jurisdiction determination or a
classification request) is needed to
complete the narrative account.
The Director of OEE may place
conditions on his or her approval of an
extension. For example, while BIS
generally obtains an agreement to toll
the statute of limitations at the time that
an initial notification is filed, in
response to a request for an extension of
the 180-day deadline, the Director of
OEE may require a tolling agreement, if
one has not already been obtained, to
cover any violations disclosed in the
initial notification or discovered during
the review conducted to prepare the
narrative account. The Director of OEE
also has discretion to require the
disclosing person to undertake specific
interim remedial compliance measures
as a condition of granting an extension
to the 180-day deadline.
Failure to meet either the 180-day
deadline or an extended deadline
granted by the Director of OEE would
not be an additional violation of the
EAR. However, that failure may reduce
or eliminate the mitigating impact of the
voluntary disclosure. The 180-day
deadline serves as an incentive to the
disclosing party, as meeting the
deadline will allow information
contained in the narrative account to be
credited by OEE as having been
voluntarily disclosed on the date of the
initial notification, even if the
information was not explicitly described
in that initial notification. This new rule
is consistent with the notion of an
initial notification, which rewards
promptness and which acknowledges
that a disclosing party might not be able
to identify all of the possible violations
of the EAR at the time an initial
notification was made.
Imposing a deadline to complete
voluntary disclosures is consistent with
the practices of other agencies. The
International Traffic in Arms
Regulations imposes a 60-day deadline
(22 CFR 127.12(c)). Similarly, the
Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control also imposes
time constraints by requiring that
disclosures be made within a reasonable
time following the initial notification.
Based on its experience with voluntary
self-disclosures, BIS believes that 180
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 06, 2012
Jkt 229001
days is ample time to complete the
narrative account in most instances and
that requests for extensions will
normally not be necessary or justified.
Proposed Changes Regarding Providing
Notice of the Institution of
Administrative Enforcement
Proceedings
Section 766.3 of the EAR sets forth the
procedures for instituting administrative
enforcement proceedings. Those
procedures include issuing a charging
letter, which constitutes the formal
administrative complaint. The charging
letter sets forth the essential facts about
the alleged violations and certain other
information about the case, and informs
the respondent that failure to answer the
charges will be treated as a default.
Respondents must be notified of the
issuance of a charging letter by one of
the methods listed in § 766.3(b) of EAR.
One allowable method is mailing a copy
of the letter by registered or certified
mail to the respondent’s last known
address. BIS proposes to add as an
authorized method of notification,
sending a copy of the charging letter to
the respondent’s last known address by
express mail or by a commercial courier
or delivery service. BIS is proposing to
make this change to facilitate the
process of notifying the respondent in
cases where the respondent’s last
known address is in a country with a
postal service that is inefficient or
unreliable or in which postal delivery
tracking information is not available. It
will also allow BIS to select an efficient
and effective method of notifying the
respondent of the issuance of the
charging letter. Moreover, unlike
registered and certified mail, reputable
commercial courier or delivery services
and the U.S. Postal Service’s express
mail use point-by-point tracking or
similar electronic tracking methods to
provide detailed records of a parcel’s
delivery or attempted delivery. The use
of services that provide detailed
tracking information for parcels sent
outside the United States will enable
BIS to track and monitor the delivery
status of pending notifications more
efficiently and effectively.
Respondents are required to answer a
charging letter within 30 days of being
served with notice of its issuance.
Currently the date of service of notice is
determined under § 766.3(c) by the date
of delivery, or of attempted delivery if
delivery is refused. BIS proposes to
remove the phrase ‘‘if delivery is
refused’’ from § 766.3(c) of the EAR.
This proposed rule eliminates the
requirement that an attempted delivery
must involve documentation that the
delivery was ‘‘refused.’’ The phrase ‘‘is
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
refused’’ focuses on registered and
certified mail, which include a
postcard-sized hard-copy receipt that is
returned to the sender after delivery or
attempted delivery. This proposed rule
provides for the use of reliable mail or
delivery services that do not use such a
hard-copy return receipt system and can
efficiently and effectively track
deliveries and attempted deliveries. In
addition, BIS has found that in some
instances foreign postal services do not
return the receipt even though the
parcel or package has been not been
returned, including in situations where
the respondent subsequently contacts
BIS about the charging letter. Moreover,
some foreign postal services do not list
‘‘refused’’ as an option on a pre-printed
return receipt or do not record other
information when the package
containing the charging letter is
returned, including in situations when
the package has been returned opened.
This proposed change to § 766.3(c)
would better enable BIS to determine
the date of service of notice of issuance
of charging letters sent to entities
located in foreign countries.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, has been in lapse and the
President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001
Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended most
recently by the Notice of August 15,
2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012),
has continued the EAR in effect under
the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS
continues to carry out the provisions of
the Export Administration Act, as
appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order
13222.
Rulemaking Requirements
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). This rule is consistent with the
goals of Executive Order 13563. This
rule has been determined not to be a
significant rule for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq., unless that collection of
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This proposed
rule involves an approved information
collection entitled ‘‘Procedure for
Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations’’
(OMB control number 0694–0058). BIS
believes that the changes to the
voluntary disclosure procedures that
this rule proposes would have no
material effect on the burden imposed
by this collection. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any
other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden to Jasmeet Seehra,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), by email to
jseehra@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202)
395–7285; and to the Regulatory Policy
Division, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce,
Room 2099B, 14th Street and
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20230 or by email to
publiccomments@bis.doc.gov
referencing RIN 0694–AF59 in the
subject line.
3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
of any rule subject to the notice and
comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute.
Under section 605(b) of the RFA,
however, if the head of an agency
certifies that a rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the statute
does not require the agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief
Counsel for Regulations, Department of
Commerce, submitted a memorandum
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Small Business Administration,
certifying that this proposed rule will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would make three
changes to the EAR. The first change
would require that parties making
voluntarily self-disclosures of violations
of the EAR complete the process within
180 days of making the initial
notification or obtain an extension from
OEE. The second change would add
delivery by express mail and
commercial couriers and delivery
services as an acceptable method of
serving administrative charging letters
on respondents. The third change would
remove the words ‘‘if delivery is
refused’’ from one section to account for
carriers with electronic tracking
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 06, 2012
Jkt 229001
capabilities. The legal and factual
background for these changes is detailed
in the preamble to this proposed rule
and not repeated here.
The first proposed change would
merely set a deadline of 180 days from
the initial disclosure for parties to
submit the narrative account that
completes the disclosure as part of a
voluntary self-disclosure. It makes no
changes to the volume or nature of the
information that an entity making a
voluntary self-disclosure must submit to
BIS. It does not create any new
substantive requirements, but merely
places a reasonable deadline on parties
seeking to obtain the benefits of
voluntary self-disclosure. If the
disclosing party needs more than 180
days, the party may request an
extension of time from the Director of
OEE. Although this proposed change
may place some additional burden on
parties making voluntary selfdisclosures, that burden would not be
significant.
The second proposed change would
allow BIS to use delivery services other
than certified or registered mail to effect
service of charging letters, or
amendments and supplements thereto.
This rule makes no changes to any of
the actions that any small entity or any
entity must make in response to an
administrative charging letter or any
supplement or amendment thereto. The
only potential impact on members of the
public is the method by which they
would receive notification, and this
cannot be considered a significant
impact on any entity outside of BIS.
The third proposed change would
remove the words ‘‘if delivery is
refused’’ from § 766.3(c). This change is
being made to update the EAR to allow
the use of carriers that track shipments,
which in turn better enables BIS to
determine the date of service notifying
respondents, foreign entities in
particular, that a charging letter has
been issued. Like the previous proposed
change, this would not impose any
burden on a member of the public.
Although BIS cannot state with
certainty the number of small entities
that would be affected by this rule, any
economic impact would be negligible.
This rule does not increase any of the
information that any party must provide
in connection with a voluntary selfdisclosure of an EAR violation. It merely
requires the disclosing party to
complete the comprehensive narrative
account of the violations within 180
days of submitting the initial
notification. BIS believes that 180 days
would be an adequate amount of time
for most voluntary self-disclosures. In
those instances where additional time is
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66779
needed to complete the narrative
account, the rule provides that the
Director of OEE may extend the 180-day
deadline. In addition, BIS believes that
the proposed change to allow for
delivery by a commercial courier or
delivery service is necessary in some
cases to effect service abroad. Similarly,
the proposed removal of the
requirement that an attempted delivery
is insufficient absent documentation
that the respondent ‘‘refused’’ the
delivery is necessary because express
mail and reputable commercial courier
or delivery services provide detailed
tracking information concerning
deliveries and attempted deliveries, and
because some foreign postal delivery
services may not document a refusal.
Because none of these proposed changes
would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required and none has been
prepared.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 764
Administrative practice and
procedure, Exports, Law enforcement,
Penalties.
15 CFR Part 766
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Exports, Law enforcement,
Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, parts 764 and 766 of the
Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730 through 774) are
proposed to be amended as follows.
PART 764—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation paragraph for
part 764 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025,
3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).
2. Section 764.5 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(c)(2)(i) and by adding three sentences
immediately following that sentence to
read as follows:
§ 764.5
Voluntary self-disclosure.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * * (i) * * * If the person
making the initial notification
subsequently completes and submits to
OEE the narrative account required by
paragraph (c)(3) of this section such that
OEE receives the narrative account
within 180 days of its receipt of the
initial notification, matters disclosed by
the narrative account will be deemed to
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
66780
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
have been disclosed to OEE on the date
of the initial notification for purposes of
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The
Director of OEE may extend this 180day deadline upon a determination in
his or her discretion that U.S.
Government interests would be served
by an extension or that the person
making the initial notification has
shown that more than 180 days is
reasonably needed to complete the
narrative account. The Director of OEE
in his or her discretion may place
conditions on the approval of an
extension. For example, the Director of
OEE may require that the disclosing
person agree to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to violations
disclosed in the initial notification or
discovered during the review to prepare
the narrative account, and/or require the
disclosing person to undertake specified
interim remedial compliance measures.
Failure to meet the deadline (either the
initial 180-day deadline or an extended
deadline granted by the Director of OEE)
would not be an additional violation of
the EAR, but such failure may reduce or
eliminate the mitigating impact of the
voluntary disclosure under Supp. No. 1
to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 766—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation paragraph for
part 766 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025,
3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).
4. Section 766.3 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read
as follows:
§ 766.3 Institution of administrative
enforcement proceedings.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) By sending a copy by registered or
certified mail or by express mail or
commercial courier or delivery service
addressed to the respondent at the
respondent’s last known address; * * *
(c) The date of service of notice of the
issuance of a charging letter instituting
an administrative enforcement
proceeding, or service of notice of the
issuance of a supplement or amendment
to a charging letter, is the date of its
delivery, or of its attempted delivery by
any means described in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
Dated November 2, 2012.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–27206 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0827; FRL–9749–5]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) portion
of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from architectural coatings.
We are approving a local rule that
regulates these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
December 7, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0827, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
SUMMARY:
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the
docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4126, law.nicole@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the dates that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
SCAQMD .............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Nov 06, 2012
Rule No.
1113
Jkt 229001
Rule title
Amended
Architectural Coatings ............................................................................
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
06/03/11
Submitted
09/27/11
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66777-66780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27206]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
15 CFR Parts 764 and 766
[Docket No. 120207107-2565-01]
RIN 0694-AF59
Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary Self-Disclosures and
Revised Notice of the Institution of Administrative Enforcement
Proceedings
AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require that the final, comprehensive
narrative account required in voluntary self-disclosures (VSDs) of
violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) be submitted
to the Office of Export Enforcement within 180 days of the initial VSD
notification. This proposed rule also would authorize the use of
delivery services other than registered or certified mail for providing
notice of the issuance of a charging letter instituting an
administrative enforcement proceeding under the EAR. It also would
remove the phrase ``if delivery is refused'' from a provision relating
to determining the date of service of notice of a charging letter's
issuance based on an attempted delivery to the respondent's last known
address. The Bureau of Industry and Security is proposing these changes
to be better able to resolve administrative enforcement proceedings in
a timely manner and provide more efficient notice of administrative
charging letters.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than January 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2012-0043.
By email directly to publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include
RIN 0694-AF59 in the subject line.
By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau
of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN
0694-AF59.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Special Agent Kirk Flashner, Office of
Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room H4514, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Tel: (202) 482-1208. Facsimile: (202) 482-5889.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Export
Enforcement (OEE), investigates possible violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) and orders, licenses, and
authorizations issued thereunder. These investigations may result in
allegations of violations that may be settled, adjudicated in an
administrative enforcement proceeding, or referred to the Department of
Justice for possible criminal prosecution. This rule proposes three
changes to the EAR. One change addresses voluntary self-disclosures in
connection with OEE's conduct of investigations. The other two changes
address service of notice in administrative enforcement proceedings.
Proposed Change Regarding Voluntary Self-Disclosures
Section 764.5 of the EAR provides a procedure whereby parties that
believe that they may have committed a violation of the EAR can
voluntarily disclose the facts of the potential violations to OEE. Such
disclosures that meet the requirements of Sec. 764.5 typically are
afforded ``great weight'' by BIS, relative to other mitigating factors,
in determining what administrative sanctions, if any, to seek. Section
764.5 requires an initial notification, which is to include a
description of the general nature and extent of the suspected
violations, and is followed at a later date by a thorough review and
narrative account of the suspected violations, including all relevant
supporting documentation. If the person making the initial notification
subsequently completes the narrative account, the disclosure is deemed
to have been submitted to OEE on the date of the initial notification.
The date of the initial notification may be significant because
information provided to OEE may only be considered a voluntary
disclosure if the information ``is received by OEE for review prior to
the time that OEE or another United States Government agency has
learned of the same or substantially similar information from another
source and has commenced an investigation or inquiry in connection with
that information.'' 15 CFR 764.5(b)(3).
Currently, Sec. 764.5 of the EAR does not include a specific time
limit within which a narrative account must be submitted to OEE. Too
often, initial notifications are not promptly followed by comprehensive
narrative accounts, and as a result, OEE must maintain open files on
voluntary disclosures for extended periods of time without making
sufficient progress towards resolving the matter disclosed. To address
these situations and promote expeditious resolution of self-disclosed
violations, BIS proposes to set a 180-day deadline for persons who have
submitted an initial notification to complete and submit the final
narrative report to OEE. The Director of OEE could extend this 180-day
time deadline, at his or her discretion, if U.S. Government interests
would be served by an extension or upon a showing by the party making
the disclosure that more time is reasonably necessary to complete the
narrative account. Some illustrative examples of circumstances that
might warrant additional time include the following.
Records or information from multiple entities and/or
jurisdictions are
[[Page 66778]]
needed to complete the narrative account.
Material changes occur in the business, such as a
bankruptcy, large layoffs, or a corporate acquisition or restructuring,
and present difficulties in gaining access to, or analysis of,
information needed to complete the narrative account.
A pending U.S. Government determination (such as a
commodity jurisdiction determination or a classification request) is
needed to complete the narrative account.
The Director of OEE may place conditions on his or her approval of
an extension. For example, while BIS generally obtains an agreement to
toll the statute of limitations at the time that an initial
notification is filed, in response to a request for an extension of the
180-day deadline, the Director of OEE may require a tolling agreement,
if one has not already been obtained, to cover any violations disclosed
in the initial notification or discovered during the review conducted
to prepare the narrative account. The Director of OEE also has
discretion to require the disclosing person to undertake specific
interim remedial compliance measures as a condition of granting an
extension to the 180-day deadline.
Failure to meet either the 180-day deadline or an extended deadline
granted by the Director of OEE would not be an additional violation of
the EAR. However, that failure may reduce or eliminate the mitigating
impact of the voluntary disclosure. The 180-day deadline serves as an
incentive to the disclosing party, as meeting the deadline will allow
information contained in the narrative account to be credited by OEE as
having been voluntarily disclosed on the date of the initial
notification, even if the information was not explicitly described in
that initial notification. This new rule is consistent with the notion
of an initial notification, which rewards promptness and which
acknowledges that a disclosing party might not be able to identify all
of the possible violations of the EAR at the time an initial
notification was made.
Imposing a deadline to complete voluntary disclosures is consistent
with the practices of other agencies. The International Traffic in Arms
Regulations imposes a 60-day deadline (22 CFR 127.12(c)). Similarly,
the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control also
imposes time constraints by requiring that disclosures be made within a
reasonable time following the initial notification. Based on its
experience with voluntary self-disclosures, BIS believes that 180 days
is ample time to complete the narrative account in most instances and
that requests for extensions will normally not be necessary or
justified.
Proposed Changes Regarding Providing Notice of the Institution of
Administrative Enforcement Proceedings
Section 766.3 of the EAR sets forth the procedures for instituting
administrative enforcement proceedings. Those procedures include
issuing a charging letter, which constitutes the formal administrative
complaint. The charging letter sets forth the essential facts about the
alleged violations and certain other information about the case, and
informs the respondent that failure to answer the charges will be
treated as a default. Respondents must be notified of the issuance of a
charging letter by one of the methods listed in Sec. 766.3(b) of EAR.
One allowable method is mailing a copy of the letter by registered or
certified mail to the respondent's last known address. BIS proposes to
add as an authorized method of notification, sending a copy of the
charging letter to the respondent's last known address by express mail
or by a commercial courier or delivery service. BIS is proposing to
make this change to facilitate the process of notifying the respondent
in cases where the respondent's last known address is in a country with
a postal service that is inefficient or unreliable or in which postal
delivery tracking information is not available. It will also allow BIS
to select an efficient and effective method of notifying the respondent
of the issuance of the charging letter. Moreover, unlike registered and
certified mail, reputable commercial courier or delivery services and
the U.S. Postal Service's express mail use point-by-point tracking or
similar electronic tracking methods to provide detailed records of a
parcel's delivery or attempted delivery. The use of services that
provide detailed tracking information for parcels sent outside the
United States will enable BIS to track and monitor the delivery status
of pending notifications more efficiently and effectively.
Respondents are required to answer a charging letter within 30 days
of being served with notice of its issuance. Currently the date of
service of notice is determined under Sec. 766.3(c) by the date of
delivery, or of attempted delivery if delivery is refused. BIS proposes
to remove the phrase ``if delivery is refused'' from Sec. 766.3(c) of
the EAR. This proposed rule eliminates the requirement that an
attempted delivery must involve documentation that the delivery was
``refused.'' The phrase ``is refused'' focuses on registered and
certified mail, which include a postcard-sized hard-copy receipt that
is returned to the sender after delivery or attempted delivery. This
proposed rule provides for the use of reliable mail or delivery
services that do not use such a hard-copy return receipt system and can
efficiently and effectively track deliveries and attempted deliveries.
In addition, BIS has found that in some instances foreign postal
services do not return the receipt even though the parcel or package
has been not been returned, including in situations where the
respondent subsequently contacts BIS about the charging letter.
Moreover, some foreign postal services do not list ``refused'' as an
option on a pre-printed return receipt or do not record other
information when the package containing the charging letter is
returned, including in situations when the package has been returned
opened. This proposed change to Sec. 766.3(c) would better enable BIS
to determine the date of service of notice of issuance of charging
letters sent to entities located in foreign countries.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended
most recently by the Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16,
2012), has continued the EAR in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues
to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as
appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive
Order 13222.
Rulemaking Requirements
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule
is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has
been determined not to be a significant rule for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq., unless that collection of
[[Page 66779]]
information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This proposed rule involves an approved
information collection entitled ``Procedure for Voluntary Self-
Disclosure of Violations'' (OMB control number 0694-0058). BIS believes
that the changes to the voluntary disclosure procedures that this rule
proposes would have no material effect on the burden imposed by this
collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), by email to jseehra@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-7285; and
to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20230 or by email to publiccomments@bis.doc.gov
referencing RIN 0694-AF59 in the subject line.
3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or
any other statute. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if the
head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the statute does not
require the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulations,
Department of Commerce, submitted a memorandum to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Small Business Administration, certifying that this proposed
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
This proposed rule would make three changes to the EAR. The first
change would require that parties making voluntarily self-disclosures
of violations of the EAR complete the process within 180 days of making
the initial notification or obtain an extension from OEE. The second
change would add delivery by express mail and commercial couriers and
delivery services as an acceptable method of serving administrative
charging letters on respondents. The third change would remove the
words ``if delivery is refused'' from one section to account for
carriers with electronic tracking capabilities. The legal and factual
background for these changes is detailed in the preamble to this
proposed rule and not repeated here.
The first proposed change would merely set a deadline of 180 days
from the initial disclosure for parties to submit the narrative account
that completes the disclosure as part of a voluntary self-disclosure.
It makes no changes to the volume or nature of the information that an
entity making a voluntary self-disclosure must submit to BIS. It does
not create any new substantive requirements, but merely places a
reasonable deadline on parties seeking to obtain the benefits of
voluntary self-disclosure. If the disclosing party needs more than 180
days, the party may request an extension of time from the Director of
OEE. Although this proposed change may place some additional burden on
parties making voluntary self-disclosures, that burden would not be
significant.
The second proposed change would allow BIS to use delivery services
other than certified or registered mail to effect service of charging
letters, or amendments and supplements thereto. This rule makes no
changes to any of the actions that any small entity or any entity must
make in response to an administrative charging letter or any supplement
or amendment thereto. The only potential impact on members of the
public is the method by which they would receive notification, and this
cannot be considered a significant impact on any entity outside of BIS.
The third proposed change would remove the words ``if delivery is
refused'' from Sec. 766.3(c). This change is being made to update the
EAR to allow the use of carriers that track shipments, which in turn
better enables BIS to determine the date of service notifying
respondents, foreign entities in particular, that a charging letter has
been issued. Like the previous proposed change, this would not impose
any burden on a member of the public.
Although BIS cannot state with certainty the number of small
entities that would be affected by this rule, any economic impact would
be negligible. This rule does not increase any of the information that
any party must provide in connection with a voluntary self-disclosure
of an EAR violation. It merely requires the disclosing party to
complete the comprehensive narrative account of the violations within
180 days of submitting the initial notification. BIS believes that 180
days would be an adequate amount of time for most voluntary self-
disclosures. In those instances where additional time is needed to
complete the narrative account, the rule provides that the Director of
OEE may extend the 180-day deadline. In addition, BIS believes that the
proposed change to allow for delivery by a commercial courier or
delivery service is necessary in some cases to effect service abroad.
Similarly, the proposed removal of the requirement that an attempted
delivery is insufficient absent documentation that the respondent
``refused'' the delivery is necessary because express mail and
reputable commercial courier or delivery services provide detailed
tracking information concerning deliveries and attempted deliveries,
and because some foreign postal delivery services may not document a
refusal. Because none of these proposed changes would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has
been prepared.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 764
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Law enforcement,
Penalties.
15 CFR Part 766
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 764 and 766 of the
Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are
proposed to be amended as follows.
PART 764--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation paragraph for part 764 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).
2. Section 764.5 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (c)(2)(i) and by adding three sentences immediately following
that sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 764.5 Voluntary self-disclosure.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * * (i) * * * If the person making the initial notification
subsequently completes and submits to OEE the narrative account
required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section such that OEE receives the
narrative account within 180 days of its receipt of the initial
notification, matters disclosed by the narrative account will be deemed
to
[[Page 66780]]
have been disclosed to OEE on the date of the initial notification for
purposes of paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The Director of OEE may
extend this 180-day deadline upon a determination in his or her
discretion that U.S. Government interests would be served by an
extension or that the person making the initial notification has shown
that more than 180 days is reasonably needed to complete the narrative
account. The Director of OEE in his or her discretion may place
conditions on the approval of an extension. For example, the Director
of OEE may require that the disclosing person agree to toll the statute
of limitations with respect to violations disclosed in the initial
notification or discovered during the review to prepare the narrative
account, and/or require the disclosing person to undertake specified
interim remedial compliance measures. Failure to meet the deadline
(either the initial 180-day deadline or an extended deadline granted by
the Director of OEE) would not be an additional violation of the EAR,
but such failure may reduce or eliminate the mitigating impact of the
voluntary disclosure under Supp. No. 1 to this part.
* * * * *
PART 766--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation paragraph for part 766 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).
4. Section 766.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 766.3 Institution of administrative enforcement proceedings.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) By sending a copy by registered or certified mail or by express
mail or commercial courier or delivery service addressed to the
respondent at the respondent's last known address; * * *
(c) The date of service of notice of the issuance of a charging
letter instituting an administrative enforcement proceeding, or service
of notice of the issuance of a supplement or amendment to a charging
letter, is the date of its delivery, or of its attempted delivery by
any means described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Dated November 2, 2012.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-27206 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P