[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80710-80718]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 766

[Docket No. 151204999-5999-01]
RIN 0694-AG73

Guidance on Charging and Penalty Determinations in Settlement of
Administrative Enforcement Cases, Revision of Supplement No. 1 to Part
766 of the Export Administration Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise Bureau of Industry and
Security's (BIS) guidance regarding administrative enforcement cases
based on violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The
rule would rewrite Supplement No. 1 to part 766 of the EAR, setting
forth the factors BIS considers when setting penalties in settlements
of administrative enforcement cases and when deciding whether to pursue
administrative charges or settle allegations of EAR violations. This
proposed rule would not apply to alleged violations of part 760--
Restrictive Trade Practices and Boycotts, which would continue to be
subject to Supplement No. 2 to part 766. BIS is proposing these changes
to make administrative penalties more predictable to the public and
aligned with those promulgated by the Department of the Treasury,
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

DATES: Comments must be received no later than February 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The
identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2015-0051.
    By email directly to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include RIN 0694-
AG73 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-AG73.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norma Curtis, Assistant Director,
Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security. Tel:
(202) 482-5036, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The mission of the Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) at BIS is to
enforce the provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR),
secure America's trade, and preserve America's technological advantage
by detecting, investigating, preventing, and deterring the unauthorized
export and reexport of U.S.-origin items to parties involved with: (1)
Weapons of mass destruction programs; (2) threats to national security
or regional stability; (3) terrorism; or (4) human rights abuses.
Export Enforcement at BIS is the only federal law enforcement agency
exclusively dedicated to the enforcement of export control laws and the
only agency constituted to do so with both administrative and criminal
export enforcement authorities. OEE's criminal investigators and
analysts leverage their subject-matter expertise, unique and
complementary administrative enforcement tools, and relationships with
other federal agencies and industry to protect our national security
and promote our foreign policy interests. OEE protects legitimate
exporters from being put at a competitive disadvantage by those who do
not comply with the law. It works to educate parties to export
transactions on how to improve export compliance practices, supporting
American companies' efforts to be reliable trading partners and
reputable stewards of U.S. national and economic security. BIS also
discourages, and in some circumstances prohibits, U.S. companies from
furthering or supporting any unsanctioned foreign boycott (including
the Arab League boycott of Israel).
    OEE at BIS may refer violators of export control laws to the U.S.
Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, and/or to BIS's Office
of Chief Counsel for administrative prosecution. In cases where there
has been a willful violation of the EAR, violators may be subject to
both criminal fines and administrative penalties. Administrative
penalties may also be imposed when there is no willful intent, allowing
administrative cases to be brought in a much wider variety of
circumstances than criminal cases. BIS has a unique combination of
administrative enforcement authorities including both civil penalties
and denials of export privileges. BIS may also place individuals and
entities on lists that restrict or prohibit their involvement in
exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country).
    In this rule, BIS is proposing to amend the EAR to update its
Guidance on Charging and Penalty Determinations in Settlement of
Administrative Enforcement Cases (the ``Guidelines'') found in
Supplement No. 1 to part 766 of the EAR in order to make civil penalty
determinations more predictable and transparent to the public and
aligned with those promulgated by the Treasury Department's Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC administers most of its sanctions
programs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA),
the same statutory authority by which BIS implements the EAR. OFAC uses
the transaction value as the starting point for determining civil
penalties pursuant to its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines.
Under IEEPA, criminal penalties can reach 20 years imprisonment and $1
million per violation, and administrative monetary penalties can reach
$250,000 or twice the value of the transaction, whichever is greater.
Both agencies coordinate and cooperate on investigations involving
violations of export controls that each agency enforces, including
programs relating to weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, Iran,
Sudan, Specially Designated Nationals and Specially Designated Global
Terrorists. This guidance would not apply to civil administrative
enforcement cases for violations under part 760 of the EAR--Restrictive
Trade Practices and Boycotts. Supplement No. 2 to Part 766 continues to
apply to enforcement cases involving part 760 violations.
    The Guidelines would provide factors by which violations could be
characterized as either egregious or non-egregious and describe the
difference in the base penalty amount likely to apply in an enforcement
case. The base penalty would depend on whether the violation is
egregious or non-egregious and whether or not the case resulted from a
voluntary self-disclosure that satisfies all the requirements of Sec.
764.5 of the EAR. Base penalty amounts would be described in terms of
the applicable statutory maximum, the transaction value, or the
applicable schedule amount. The terms ``transaction value'' and
``applicable schedule amount'' would be defined in the Guidelines. The
``statutory maximum'' would be the maximum permitted by Sec.
764.3(a)(1) of the EAR

(15 CFR 764.3(a)(1)) subject to adjustment under the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461). Additional
information about the changes proposed here and how they differ from
the current Guidelines set forth in Supplement No. 1 to Part 766 is
described below.
    Once the base penalty amount has been determined, Factors set forth
in these Guidelines would be applied to determine whether the base
penalty amount should be adjusted downward or, subject to the statutory
maximum, upward. Factors set forth in the current Guidelines would be
reorganized into the following categories: (1) Aggravating Factors
(e.g., willfulness or recklessness); (2) General Factors that could be
considered either aggravating or mitigating depending upon the
circumstances (e.g., the absence or presence and adequacy of an
internal compliance program); (3) Mitigating Factors (e.g., remedial
measures taken); and (4) other Relevant Factors on a case-by-case basis
(e.g., additional violations or other enforcement actions). Voluntary
self-disclosures (VSDs) would no longer be listed as mitigating factors
in and of themselves, but credit accorded to VSDs would be built into
the determination of the base penalty amount. This credit would no
longer be characterized as constituting ``great weight'' mitigation,
but violations disclosed in a complete and timely VSD may be afforded a
deduction of 50 percent of the transaction value or, in egregious
cases, the statutory maximum in determining the base penalty amount.
Mitigating Factors would also be assigned specific percentages off the
base penalty amount, as further described below. Mitigating Factors may
be combined for a greater reduction in penalty but mitigation will
generally not exceed 75 percent of the base penalty.
    Willfulness, recklessness and concealment would be set forth as
Aggravating Factor A--Willful or Reckless Violation of Law in the
revised Guidelines. The degree to which these actions are present would
determine the degree of aggravation factored into the penalty
calculation. Aggravating Factor B--Awareness of Conduct at Issue would
be listed as a separate factor in the revised Guidelines to address
situations where the Respondent knew or had reason to know of the
violation(s), and took no action to address them. Currently, knowing
violations are subsumed within consideration of the ``Degree of
Willfulness.'' Harm to regulatory program objectives would be listed as
Aggravating Factor C--Harm to Regulatory Program Objectives. This
factor would take into account all of the following: The destination
involved, the end use and end user, and the sensitivity and control
level of the item(s) involved in the transaction. Aggravating Factors
A-C would be considered key in determining whether a violation was
egregious or not, as further discussed below. Other aggravating facts,
whether relating to the General Factors or Other Relevant Factors
discussed below, may also be pertinent in determining whether a
violation was egregious.
    Under this proposed rule, General Factors could either be
mitigating or aggravating depending upon the circumstances. Two General
Factors would be set forth in the revised Guidelines: General Factor D,
involving an assessment of the individual characteristics of a
Respondent; and General Factor E, assessing the presence and adequacy
of a compliance program. General Factor D--Individual Characteristics--
would encompass an evaluation of the Respondent's commercial
sophistication, exporting experience, volume and value of transactions,
and regulatory history. General Factor E--Compliance Program--would
involve a determination of whether or not the Respondent had an
effective risk-based BIS compliance program in place at the time of the
apparent violation, including an assessment of the extent to which it
complied with BIS's Export Management System (EMS) Guidelines. Under
General Factor E, if the Respondent's compliance program served to
uncover the violation and led to prompt and comprehensive remedial
measures taken to ensure against future violations, additional
mitigation may be accorded to the Respondent under Mitigating Factor F,
Remedial Response. That factor looks at whether the Respondent took
corrective action in response to the apparent violation, such as
stopping the conduct at issue.
    Mitigating Factor G--Exceptional Cooperation with OEE may result in
a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction of the base penalty amount. This
level of cooperation goes beyond what would be considered minimally
necessary to address a violation and take corrective measures. In cases
not involving a VSD, the Respondent must have provided substantial
additional information regarding the apparent violation and/or other
apparent violations caused by the same course of conduct. Exceptional
cooperation in cases involving VSDs may also be considered as a further
mitigating factor.
    Transactions that would likely have received a license had one been
sought, as set forth in Mitigating Factor H--License Was Likely To Be
Approved also may result in up to a 25 percent reduction of the base
penalty amount. First offenses, addressed in the context of calculation
of the base penalty amount, may also result in a reduction of that
amount by up to 25 percent.
    Finally, proposed Factors I-M pertain to factors that may be
relevant in certain circumstances and considered on a case-by-case
basis. Factor I--Related Violations would address situations in which a
single export transaction can give rise to multiple violations. Factor
J--Multiple Unrelated Violations would address situations where
multiple unrelated violations, as described in this proposed rule,
could warrant a stronger enforcement response, including a denial
order. Factor K--Other Enforcement Action would provide that
corresponding enforcement action taken by federal, state, or local
agencies in response to the apparent violation or similar apparent
violations may be considered, particularly with regard to global
settlements or criminal convictions and/or plea agreements.
    Factor L--Future Compliance/Deterrence Effect would address the
impact that the administrative action may have with regard to promoting
future compliance and deterring such conduct by other similar parties,
particularly in the same industry sector. Factor M--Other Factors That
BIS Deems Relevant would serve as a ``catch-all'' category to retain
flexibility to consider factors not already specifically addressed in
the Guidelines, whether proposed by the Respondent or BIS.
    Consideration of these Factors would not dictate a particular
outcome in any particular case, but rather is intended to identify
those Factors most relevant to BIS's decision and to guide the agency's
exercise of its discretion. The Guidelines would provide sufficient
flexibility to allow for the consideration of the Factors most relevant
to a particular case. Penalties for settlements reached after the
initiation of an enforcement proceeding and litigation through the
filing of a charging letter will usually be higher than those described
by these Guidelines.
    In accordance with OEE's existing posture that enhanced maximum
civil penalties authorized by the International Emergency Economic
Powers Enhancement Act (Enhancement Act) (Pub. L. 110-96, 50 U.S.C.
1701, et seq.) should be reserved for the most serious cases, the
Guidelines would formally account for the substantial

increase in the maximum penalties for violations of IEEPA and
distinguish between egregious and non-egregious civil monetary penalty
cases. Egregious cases would be those involving the most serious
violations, based on an analysis of all applicable Factors, with
substantial weight given to considerations of willfulness or
recklessness, awareness of the conduct giving rise to an apparent
violation, and harm to the regulatory program objectives, taking into
account the individual characteristics of the parties involved. As
described below, the Guidelines generally would provide for
significantly higher civil penalties for egregious cases. OEE
anticipates that the majority of apparent violations investigated by
OEE will fall in the non-egregious category. OEE does not expect that
adoption of these guidelines will increase the number of cases that are
charged administratively rather than closed with a warning letter.
    The Guidelines define the ``transaction value'' to mean the dollar
value of a subject transaction. Where the dollar value cannot be
determined with certainty, the Guidelines would provide sufficient
flexibility to allow for the determination of an appropriate
transaction value in a wide variety of circumstances. The applicable
schedule amounts, which would provide for a graduated series of
penalties based on the underlying transaction values, reflect
appropriate starting points for penalty calculations in non-egregious
cases not involving VSDs. The base penalty amount for a non-egregious
case involving a VSD would equal one-half of the transaction value,
capped at $125,000, for an apparent violation of the EAR. Such
calculation would ensure that the base penalty for a VSD case will not
be more than one-half of the base penalty for a similar case that is
not voluntarily self-disclosed. This difference is intended to serve as
an additional incentive for the submission of VSDs. In the interest of
providing greater transparency and predictability to BIS administrative
enforcement actions, BIS would also allot penalty reductions--all from
the base penalty amount--of between 25 and 40 percent for exceptional
cooperation, and up to an additional 25 percent for first offenses and
for transactions where a license was likely to be approved.
    BIS encourages the submission of VSDs by persons who believe they
may have violated the EAR. The purpose of an enforcement action
includes raising awareness, increasing compliance, and deterring future
violations, not merely punishing past conduct. VSDs are a compelling
indicator of a person's present intent and future commitment to comply
with U.S. export control requirements. The purpose of mitigating the
enforcement response in voluntary self-disclosure cases is to encourage
the notification to OEE of apparent violations about which OEE would
not otherwise have learned. OEE's longstanding policy of encouraging
the submission of VSDs involving apparent violations is reflected by
the fact that, over the past several years, on average only three
percent of VSDs submitted have resulted in a civil penalty. The
majority of cases brought to the attention of OEE through VSDs result
in the issuance of warning letters, containing a finding that a
violation may have taken place. With respect to VSDs generally, OEE
will issue warning letters in cases involving inadvertent violations
and cases involving minor or isolated compliance deficiencies, absent
the presence of aggravating factors.
    Finally, in appropriate cases in the context of settlement
negotiations, BIS may suspend or defer payment of a civil penalty,
taking into account whether the Respondent has demonstrated a limited
ability to pay, whether the matter is part of a global settlement with
other U.S. government agencies, and/or whether the Respondent will
apply a portion or all of the funds suspended or deferred for purposes
of improving its internal compliance program.
    Cases will continue to be processed in accordance with the
enforcement guidelines and precedents currently in existence until the
new Guidelines are issued in final form after review of public
comments.

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, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    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 (PRA), unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number. This rule does not contain any collections of information.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 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 Regulation,
Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Number of Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the term ``small entities''
encompasses small businesses, small (not for profit) organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) does not collect data on the size of entities that apply for and
are issued export licenses pursuant to the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR). However, in this instance, no small entities would
be impacted by this rule because this rule would not require any person
to change its behavior, nor would it alter any rights that any person
has pursuant to the EAR. Only BIS would be directly affected by this
proposed rule and BIS is not a small entity for purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Economic Impact

    This proposed rule would revise Bureau of Industry and Security's
guidance regarding administrative enforcement cases based on violations
of the EAR. The rule would set forth the factors BIS would consider
when setting penalties in the settlement of administrative enforcement
cases, when deciding whether to pursue administrative charges or settle
allegations of EAR violations, and when

deciding what level of penalty to seek in settlements of administrative
cases. As with the existing guidelines, consideration of these factors
would not dictate the outcome in a particular case. Instead the
guidelines are intended to identify those factors most relevant to
BIS's decision and to guide BIS in the exercise of its discretion. The
guidelines themselves would provide sufficient flexibility for
consideration of the factors most relevant in a particular case.
Publication of this proposed rule and any resulting final rule is
intended to make BIS decisions related to administrative enforcement of
the Export Administration Regulations more transparent and predictable
to the public. The rule would not require any party other than BIS to
alter its behavior, nor would it alter any right that any person
(including any small entity) currently has under the Export
Administration Regulations. BIS is not a small entity for purposes of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March
8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of
August 7, 2015, (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015)), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act. 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 as amended by Executive Order
13637.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 766

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Exports, Law Enforcement, Penalties.

    Accordingly, this proposed rule proposes to amend part 766 of the
Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) (EAR) as
follows:

PART 766--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation 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
7, 2015, 80 48233 (August 11, 2015).

0
2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 766 is revised to read as follows:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 766--Guidance on Charging and Penalty
Determinations in Settlement of Administrative Enforcement Cases

Introduction

    This Supplement describes how the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) responds to apparent violations of the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) and, specifically, how BIS makes penalty
determinations in the settlement of civil administrative enforcement
cases under part 764 of the EAR. This guidance does not apply to
enforcement cases for violations under part 760 of the EAR--Restrictive
Trade Practices or Boycotts. Supplement No. 2 to Part 766 continues to
apply to civil administrative enforcement cases involving part 760
violations.
    Because many administrative enforcement cases are resolved through
settlement, the process of settling such cases is integral to the
enforcement program. BIS carefully considers each settlement offer in
light of the facts and circumstances of the case, relevant precedent,
and BIS's objective to achieve in each case an appropriate penalty and
deterrent effect. In settlement negotiations, BIS encourages parties to
provide, and will give serious consideration to, information and
evidence that parties believe are relevant to the application of this
guidance to their cases, to whether a violation has in fact occurred,
or to whether they have an affirmative defense to potential charges.
    This guidance does not confer any right or impose any obligation
regarding what penalties BIS may seek in litigating a case or what
posture BIS may take toward settling a case. Parties do not have a
right to a settlement offer or particular settlement terms from BIS,
regardless of settlement positions BIS has taken in other cases.

I. Definitions

    Note: See also: Definitions contained in Sec.  766.2 of the EAR.

    Apparent violation means conduct that constitutes an actual or
possible violation of the Export Administration Act of 1979, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the EAR, other statutes
administered or enforced by BIS, as well as executive orders,
regulations, orders, directives, or licenses issued pursuant thereto.
    Applicable schedule amount means:
    1. $1,000 with respect to a transaction valued at less than $1,000;
    2. $10,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $1,000 or more
but less than $10,000;
    3. $25,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $10,000 or more
but less than $25,000;
    4. $50,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $25,000 or more
but less than $50,000;
    5. $100,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $50,000 or more
but less than $100,000;
    6. $170,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $100,000 or
more but less than $170,000;
    7. $250,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $170,000 or
more.
    Transaction value means the U.S. dollar value of a subject
transaction, as demonstrated by commercial invoices, bills of lading,
signed Customs declarations, or similar documents. Where the
transaction value is not otherwise ascertainable, BIS may consider the
market value of the items that were the subject of the transaction and/
or the economic benefit derived by the Respondent from the transaction,
in determining transaction value. In situations involving a lease of
U.S.-origin items, the transaction value will generally be the value of
the lease. For purposes of these Guidelines, ``transaction value'' will
not necessarily have the same meaning, nor be applied in the same
manner, as that term is used for import valuation purposes at 19 CFR
152.103.
    Voluntary self-disclosure means the self-initiated notification to
OEE of an apparent violation as described in and satisfying the
requirements of Sec.  764.5 of the EAR.

II. Types of Responses to Apparent Violations

    OEE, among other responsibilities, investigates apparent violations
of the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder.
When it appears that such a violation has occurred, OEE investigations
may lead to a warning letter or an administrative enforcement
proceeding. A violation may also be referred to the Department of
Justice for criminal prosecution. The type of enforcement action
initiated by OEE will depend primarily on the nature of the violation.
Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, an OEE
investigation may lead to one or more of the following actions:
    A. No Action. If OEE determines that there is insufficient evidence
to conclude that a violation has occurred, determines that a violation
did not occur and/or, based on an analysis of the Factors outlined in
Section III of these Guidelines, concludes that the conduct does not
rise to a level warranting an administrative response,

then no action will be taken. In such circumstances, if the
investigation was initiated by a voluntary self-disclosure (VSD), OEE
will issue a letter in response indicating that the investigation is
being closed with no administrative action being taken. OEE may issue a
no-action letter in non-voluntarily disclosed cases at its discretion.
A no-action determination represents a final determination as to the
apparent violation, unless OEE later learns of additional information
regarding the same or similar transactions or other relevant facts.
    B. Warning Letter. If OEE determines that a violation may have
occurred but a civil penalty is not warranted under the circumstances,
and believes that the underlying conduct could lead to a violation in
other circumstances and/or that a Respondent does not appear to be
exercising due diligence in assuring compliance with the statutes,
executive orders, and regulations that OEE enforces, OEE may issue a
warning letter. A warning letter may convey OEE's concerns about the
underlying conduct and/or the Respondent's compliance policies,
practices, and/or procedures. It may also address an apparent violation
of a technical nature, where good faith efforts to comply with the law
and cooperate with the investigation are present, or where the
investigation commenced as a result of a voluntary self-disclosure
satisfying the requirements of Sec.  764.5 of the EAR, provided that no
aggravating factors exist. In the exercise of its discretion, OEE may
determine in certain instances that issuing a warning letter, instead
of bringing an administrative enforcement proceeding, will achieve the
appropriate enforcement result. A warning letter will describe the
apparent violation and urge compliance. A warning letter represents
OEE's enforcement response to the apparent violation, unless OEE later
learns of additional information concerning the same or similar
apparent violations. A warning letter does not constitute a final
agency determination as to whether a violation has occurred.
    C. Administrative enforcement case. If BIS determines that a
violation has occurred and, based on an analysis of the Factors
outlined in Section III of these Guidelines, concludes that the
Respondent's conduct warrants a civil monetary penalty or other
administrative sanctions, BIS may initiate an administrative
enforcement case. The issuance of a charging letter under Sec.  766.3
of the EAR initiates an administrative enforcement proceeding. Charging
letters may be issued when there is reason to believe that a violation
has occurred. Cases may be settled before or after the issuance of a
charging letter. See Sec.  766.18 of the EAR. BIS may prepare a
proposed charging letter which could result in a case being settled
before issuance of an actual charging letter. See Sec.  766.18(a) of
the EAR. If a case does not settle before issuance of a charging letter
and the case proceeds to adjudication, the resulting charging letter
may include more violations than alleged in the proposed charging
letter. Civil monetary penalty amounts for cases settled before the
issuance of a charging letter will be determined as discussed in
Section IV of these Guidelines. A civil monetary penalty may be
assessed for each violation. The maximum amount of such a penalty per
violation is stated in Sec.  764.3(a)(1), subject to adjustments under
the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C.
2461), which are codified at 15 CFR 6.4. BIS will afford the Respondent
an opportunity to respond to a proposed charging letter. Responses to
charging letters following the institution of an enforcement proceeding
under part 766 of the EAR are governed by Sec.  766.3 of the EAR.
    D. Civil Monetary Penalty. BIS may seek a civil monetary penalty if
BIS determines that a violation has occurred and, based on the Factors
outlined in Section III of these Guidelines, concludes that the
Respondent's conduct warrants a monetary penalty. Section IV of these
Guidelines will guide the agency's exercise of its discretion in
determining civil monetary penalty amounts.
    E. Criminal Referral. In appropriate circumstances, BIS may refer
the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
Apparent violations referred for criminal prosecution also may be
subject to a civil monetary penalty and/or other administrative
sanctions or action by BIS.
    F. Other Administrative Sanctions or Actions. In addition to or in
lieu of other administrative actions, BIS may seek sanctions listed in
Sec.  764.3 of the EAR. BIS may also take the following administrative
actions, among other actions, in response to an apparent violation:
    License Revision, Suspension or Revocation. BIS authorizations to
engage in a transaction pursuant to a license or license exception may
be revised, suspended or revoked in response to an apparent violation
as provided in Sec. Sec.  740.2(b) and 750.8 of the EAR.
    Denial of Export Privileges. An order denying a Respondent's export
privileges may be issued, as described in Sec.  764.3(a)(2) of the EAR.
Such a denial may extend to all export privileges, as set out in the
standard terms for denial orders in Supplement No. 1 to part 764 of the
EAR, or may be narrower in scope (e.g., limited to exports of specified
items or to specified destinations or customers). A denial order may
also be suspended in whole or in part in accordance with Sec.
766.18(c).
    Exclusion from practice. Under Sec.  764.3(a)(3) of the EAR, any
person acting as an attorney, accountant, consultant, freight forwarder
or other person who acts in a representative capacity in any matter
before BIS may be excluded from practicing before BIS.
    Training and Audit Requirements. In appropriate cases, OEE may
require as part of a settlement agreement that the Respondent provide
training to employees as part of its compliance program, adopt other
compliance measures, and/or be subject to internal or independent
audits by a qualified outside person. In those cases, OEE may suspend
or defer a portion or all of the penalty amount if the suspended amount
is applied to comply with such requirements.
    G. Suspension or Deferral. In appropriate cases, payment of a civil
monetary penalty may be suspended or deferred during a probationary
period under a settlement agreement and order. If the terms of the
settlement agreement or order are not adhered to by the Respondent,
then suspension or deferral may be revoked and the full amount of the
penalty imposed. See Sec.  764.3(a)(1)(iii) of the EAR. In determining
whether suspension or deferral is appropriate, BIS may consider, for
example, whether the Respondent has demonstrated a limited ability to
pay a penalty that would be appropriate for such violations, so that
suspended or deferred payment can be expected to have sufficient
deterrent value, and whether, in light of all of the circumstances,
such suspension or deferral is necessary to make the impact of the
penalty consistent with the impact of penalties on other parties who
committed similar violations. BIS may also take into account when
determining whether or not to suspend or defer a civil penalty whether
the Respondent will apply a portion or all of the funds suspended or
deferred to audit, compliance, or training that may be required under a
settlement agreement and order, or the matter is part of a ``global
settlement'' as discussed in more detail below.

III. Factors Affecting Administrative Sanctions

    Many apparent violations are isolated occurrences, the result of a
good-faith misinterpretation, or involve no more than simple negligence
or carelessness. In such instances, absent the presence of aggravating
factors, the matter frequently may be addressed with a warning letter.
If the violations are of such a nature and extent that a monetary fine
alone represents an insufficient penalty, a denial or exclusion order
may also be imposed to prevent future violations of the EAR.
    While some violations of the EAR have a degree of knowledge or
intent as an element of the offense, OEE may regard a violation of any
provision of the EAR as knowing or willful if the facts and
circumstances of the case support that conclusion. For example,
evidence that a corporate entity had knowledge at a senior management
level may mean that a higher penalty may be appropriate. OEE will also
consider, in accordance with Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR,
the presence of any red flags that should have alerted the Respondent
that a violation was likely to occur. The aggravating factors
identified in the Guidelines do not alter or amend Sec.  764.2(e) or
the definition of ``knowledge'' in Sec.  772.1, or other provisions of
parts 764 and 772 of the EAR.
    As a general matter, BIS will consider some or all of the following
Factors in determining the appropriate sanctions in administrative
cases, including the appropriate amount of a civil monetary penalty
where such a penalty is sought and is imposed as part of a settlement
agreement and order. These factors describe circumstances that, in
BIS's experience, are commonly relevant to penalty determinations in
settled cases. Factors that are considered exclusively aggravating,
such as willfulness, or exclusively mitigating, such as situations
where remedial measures were taken, are set forth below. This guidance
also identifies General Factors--which can be either mitigating or
aggravating--such as the presence or absence of an internal compliance
program at the time the apparent violations occurred. Other relevant
Factors may also be considered at the agency's discretion.

Aggravating Factors

    A. Willful or Reckless Violation of Law: BIS will consider a
Respondent's apparent willfulness or recklessness in violating,
attempting to violate, conspiring to violate, or causing a violation of
the law. Generally, to the extent the conduct at issue appears to be
the result of willful conduct--a deliberate intent to violate, attempt
to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of the law--the
OEE enforcement response will be stronger. Among the factors BIS may
consider in evaluating apparent willfulness or recklessness are:
    1. Willfulness. Was the conduct at issue the result of a decision
to take action with the knowledge that such action would constitute a
violation of U.S. law? Did the Respondent know that the underlying
conduct constituted, or likely constituted, a violation of U.S. law at
the time of the conduct?
    2. Recklessness/gross negligence. Did the Respondent demonstrate
reckless disregard or gross negligence with respect to compliance with
U.S. regulatory requirements or otherwise fail to exercise a minimal
degree of caution or care in avoiding conduct that led to the apparent
violation? Were there warning signs that should have alerted the
Respondent that an action or failure to act would lead to an apparent
violation?
    3. Concealment. Was there a deliberate effort by the Respondent to
hide or purposely obfuscate its conduct in order to mislead BIS,
federal, state, or foreign regulators, or other parties involved in the
conduct, about an apparent violation?

    Note: Failure to voluntarily disclose an apparent violation to
OEE does not constitute concealment.

    4. Pattern of Conduct. Did the apparent violation constitute or
result from a pattern or practice of conduct or was it relatively
isolated and atypical in nature?
    5. Prior Notice. Was the Respondent on notice, or should it
reasonably have been on notice, that the conduct at issue, or similar
conduct, constituted a violation of U.S. law?
    6. Management Involvement. In cases of entities, at what level
within the organization did the willful or reckless conduct occur? Were
supervisory or managerial level staff aware, or should they reasonably
have been aware, of the willful or reckless conduct?
    B. Awareness of Conduct at Issue: The Respondent's awareness of the
conduct giving rise to the apparent violation. Generally, the greater a
Respondent's actual knowledge of, or reason to know about, the conduct
constituting an apparent violation, the stronger the BIS enforcement
response will be. In the case of a corporation, awareness will focus on
supervisory or managerial level staff in the business unit at issue, as
well as other senior officers and managers. Among the factors OEE may
consider in evaluating the Respondent's awareness of the conduct at
issue are:
    1. Actual Knowledge. Did the Respondent have actual knowledge that
the conduct giving rise to an apparent violation took place, and remain
willfully blind to such conduct, and fail to take remedial measures to
address it? Was the conduct part of a business process, structure or
arrangement that was designed or implemented with the intent to prevent
or shield the Respondent from having such actual knowledge, or was the
conduct part of a business process, structure or arrangement
implemented for other legitimate reasons that consequently made it
difficult or impossible for the Respondent to have actual knowledge?
    2. Reason to Know. If the Respondent did not have actual knowledge
that the conduct took place, did the Respondent have reason to know, or
should the Respondent reasonably have known, based on all readily
available information and with the exercise of reasonable due
diligence, that the conduct would or might take place?
    3. Management Involvement. In the case of an entity, was the
conduct undertaken with the explicit or implicit knowledge of senior
management, or was the conduct undertaken by personnel outside the
knowledge of senior management? If the apparent violation was
undertaken without the knowledge of senior management, was there
oversight intended to detect and prevent violations, or did the lack of
knowledge by senior management result from disregard for its
responsibility to comply with applicable regulations and laws?
    C. Harm to Regulatory Program Objectives: The actual or potential
harm to regulatory program objectives caused by the conduct giving rise
to the apparent violation. This factor would be present where the
conduct in question, in purpose or effect, substantially implicated
national security or other essential interests (e.g., foreign policy,
nonproliferation) protected by the U.S. export control system, in view
of such factors as the reason for controlling the item to the
destination in question; the sensitivity of the item; the prohibitions
or restrictions against the recipient of the item; and the licensing
policy concerning the transaction (such as presumption of approval or
denial). BIS, in its discretion, may consult with other U.S. agencies
or with licensing and enforcement authorities of other countries in
making its determination. Among the factors BIS may consider in
evaluating the harm to regulatory program objectives are:

    1. Implications for U.S. National Security: The impact that the
apparent violation had or could potentially have on the national
security of the United States. For example, if a particular export
could undermine U.S. military superiority or endanger U.S. or friendly
military forces or be used in a military application contrary to U.S.
interests, BIS would consider the implications of the apparent
violation to be significant.
    2. Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy: The effect that the
apparent violation had or could potentially have on U.S. foreign policy
objectives. For example, if a particular export is, or is likely to be,
used by a foreign regime to monitor communications of its population in
order to suppress free speech and persecute dissidents, BIS would
consider the implications of the apparent violation to be significant.

General Factors

    D. Individual Characteristics: The particular circumstances and
characteristics of a Respondent. Among the factors BIS may consider in
evaluating individual characteristics are:
    1. Commercial Sophistication: The commercial sophistication and
experience of the Respondent. Is the Respondent an individual or an
entity? If an individual, was the conduct constituting the apparent
violation for personal or business reasons?
    2. Size and Sophistication of Operations: The size of a
Respondent's business operations, where such information is available
and relevant. At the time of the violation, did the Respondent have any
previous export experience and was the Respondent familiar with export
practices and requirements? Qualification of the Respondent as a small
business or organization for the purposes of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, as determined by reference to the
applicable standards of the Small Business Administration, may also be
considered.
    3. Volume and Value of Transactions: The total volume and value of
transactions undertaken by the Respondent on an annual basis, with
attention given to the volume and value of the apparent violations as
compared with the total volume and value of all transactions. Was the
quantity and/or value of the exports high, such that a greater penalty
may be necessary to serve as an adequate penalty for the violation or
deterrence of future violations, or to make the penalty proportionate
to those for otherwise comparable violations involving exports of lower
quantity or value?
    4. Regulatory History: The Respondent's regulatory history,
including BIS's issuance of prior penalties, warning letters, or other
administrative actions (including settlements), other than with respect
to antiboycott matters under part 760 of the EAR. BIS will generally
only consider a Respondent's regulatory history for the five years
preceding the date of the transaction giving rise to the apparent
violation. When an acquiring firm takes reasonable steps to uncover,
correct, and voluntarily disclose or cause the voluntary self-
disclosure to OEE of conduct that gave rise to violations by an
acquired business before the acquisition, BIS typically will not take
such violations into account in applying these Factors in settling
other violations by the acquiring firm.
    5. Other illegal conduct in connection with the export: Was the
transaction in support of other illegal conduct, for example the export
of firearms as part of a drug smuggling operation, or illegal exports
in support of money laundering?
    6. Criminal Convictions: Has the Respondent has been convicted of
an export-related criminal violation?

    Note: Where necessary to effective enforcement, the prior
involvement in export violation(s) of a Respondent's owners,
directors, officers, partners, or other related persons may be
imputed to a Respondent in determining whether these criteria are
satisfied.

    E. Compliance Program: The existence, nature and adequacy of a
Respondent's risk-based BIS compliance program at the time of the
apparent violation. BIS will take account of the extent to which a
Respondent complies with the principles set forth in BIS's Export
Management System (EMS) Guidelines. Information about the EMS
Guidelines can be accessed through the BIS Web site at www.bis.doc.gov.
In this context, BIS will also consider whether a Respondent's export
compliance program uncovered a problem, thereby preventing further
violations, and whether the Respondent has taken steps to address
compliance concerns raised by the violation, including steps to prevent
reoccurrence of the violation, that are reasonably calculated to be
effective.

Mitigating Factors

    F. Remedial Response: The Respondent's corrective action taken in
response to the apparent violation. Among the factors BIS may consider
in evaluating the remedial response are:
    1. The steps taken by the Respondent upon learning of the apparent
violation. Did the Respondent immediately stop the conduct at issue?
    2. In the case of an entity, the processes followed to resolve
issues related to the apparent violation. Did the Respondent discover
necessary information to ascertain the causes and extent of the
apparent violation, fully and expeditiously? Was senior management
fully informed? If so, when?
    3. In the case of an entity, whether it adopted new and more
effective internal controls and procedures to prevent the occurrence of
similar apparent violations. If the entity did not have a BIS
compliance program in place at the time of the apparent violation, did
it implement one upon discovery of the apparent violation? If it did
have a BIS compliance program, did it take appropriate steps to enhance
the program to prevent the recurrence of similar violations? Did the
entity provide the individual(s) and/or managers responsible for the
apparent violation with additional training, and/or take other
appropriate action, to ensure that similar violations do not occur in
the future?
    4. Where applicable, whether the Respondent undertook a thorough
review to identify other possible violations.
    G. Exceptional Cooperation with OEE: The nature and extent of the
Respondent's cooperation with OEE, beyond those actions set forth in
Factor F. Among the factors BIS may consider in evaluating exceptional
cooperation are:
    1. Did the Respondent provide OEE with all relevant information
regarding the apparent violation at issue in a timely, comprehensive
and responsive manner (whether or not voluntarily self-disclosed),
including, if applicable, overseas records?
    2. Did the Respondent research and disclose to OEE relevant
information regarding any other apparent violations caused by the same
course of conduct?
    3. Did the Respondent provide substantial assistance in another OEE
investigation of another person who may have violated the EAR?
    4. Did the Respondent enter into a statute of limitations tolling
agreement, if requested by OEE (particularly in situations where the
apparent violations were not immediately disclosed or discovered by
OEE, in particularly complex cases, and in cases in which the
Respondent has requested and received additional time to respond to a
request for information from OEE)? If so, the Respondent's entering
into a tolling agreement will be deemed a mitigating factor.

    Note: A Respondent's refusal to enter into a tolling agreement
will not be considered by BIS as an aggravating factor in assessing
a Respondent's cooperation or otherwise under the Guidelines.

    H. License Was Likely To Be Approved: Would an export license
application have likely been approved for the transaction had one been
sought? Some license requirements sections in the EAR also set forth a
licensing policy (i.e., a statement of the policy under which license
applications will be evaluated), such as a general presumption of
denial or case by case review. BIS may also consider the licensing
history of the specific item to that destination and if the item or
end-user has a history of export denials.

Other Relevant Factors Considered on a Case-by-Case Basis

    I. Related Violations: Frequently, a single export transaction can
give rise to multiple violations. For example, an exporter who
inadvertently misclassifies an item on the Commerce Control List may,
as a result of that error, export the item without the required export
license and file Electronic Export Information (EEI) to the Automated
Export System (AES) that both misstates the applicable Export Control
Classification Number (ECCN) and erroneously identifies the export as
qualifying for the designation ``NLR'' (no license required) or cites a
license exception that is not applicable. In so doing, the exporter
commits three violations: one violation of Sec.  764.2(a) of the EAR
for the unauthorized export and two violations of Sec.  764.2(g) of the
EAR for the two false statements on the EEI filing to the AES. It is
within the discretion of BIS to charge three separate violations and
settle the case for a penalty that is less than would be appropriate
for three unrelated violations under otherwise similar circumstances,
or to charge fewer than three violations and pursue settlement in
accordance with that charging decision.
    J. Multiple Unrelated Violations: In cases involving multiple
unrelated violations, BIS is more likely to seek a denial of export
privileges and/or a greater monetary penalty than BIS would otherwise
typically seek. For example, repeated unauthorized exports could
warrant a denial order, even if a single export of the same item to the
same destination under similar circumstances might warrant just a civil
monetary penalty. BIS takes this approach because multiple violations
may indicate serious compliance problems and a resulting greater risk
of future violations. BIS may consider whether a Respondent has taken
effective steps to address compliance concerns in determining whether
multiple violations warrant a denial in a particular case.
    K. Other Enforcement Action: Other enforcement actions taken by
federal, state, or local agencies against a Respondent for the apparent
violation or similar apparent violations, including whether the
settlement of alleged violations of BIS regulations is part of a
comprehensive settlement with other federal, state, or local agencies.
Where an administrative enforcement matter under the EAR involves
conduct giving rise to related criminal or civil charges, OEE may take
into account the related violations, and their resolution, in
determining what administrative sanctions are appropriate under part
766 of the EAR. A criminal conviction indicates serious, willful
misconduct and an accordingly high risk of future violations, absent
effective administrative sanctions. However, entry of a guilty plea can
be a sign that a Respondent accepts responsibility for complying with
the EAR and will take greater care to do so in the future. In
appropriate cases where a Respondent is receiving substantial criminal
penalties, BIS may find that sufficient deterrence may be achieved by
lesser administrative sanctions than would be appropriate in the
absence of criminal penalties. Conversely, BIS might seek greater
administrative sanctions in an otherwise similar case where a
Respondent is not subjected to criminal penalties. The presence of a
related criminal or civil disposition may distinguish settlements among
civil penalty cases that appear otherwise to be similar. As a result,
the factors set forth for consideration in civil penalty settlements
will often be applied differently in the context of a ``global
settlement'' of both civil and criminal cases, or multiple civil cases,
and may therefore be of limited utility as precedent for future cases,
particularly those not involving a global settlement.
    L. Future Compliance/Deterrence Effect: The impact an
administrative enforcement action may have on promoting future
compliance with the regulations by a Respondent and similar parties,
particularly those in the same industry sector.
    M. Other Factors That BIS Deems Relevant: On a case-by-case basis,
in determining the appropriate enforcement response and/or the amount
of any civil monetary penalty, BIS will consider the totality of the
circumstances to ensure that its enforcement response is proportionate
to the nature of the violation.

IV. Civil Penalties

A. Determining What Sanctions Are Appropriate in a Settlement

    OEE will review the facts and circumstances surrounding an apparent
violation and apply the Factors Affecting Administrative Sanctions in
Section III above in determining the appropriate sanction or sanctions
in an administrative case, including the appropriate amount of a civil
monetary penalty where such a penalty is sought and imposed. Penalties
for settlements reached after the initiation of litigation will usually
be higher than those described by these guidelines.

B. Amount of Civil Penalty

    1. Determining Whether a Case is Egregious. In those cases in which
a civil monetary penalty is considered appropriate, OEE will make a
determination as to whether a case is deemed ``egregious'' for purposes
of the base penalty calculation. This determination will be based on an
analysis of the applicable Factors. In making the egregiousness
determination, substantial weight will generally be given to Factors A
(``willful or reckless violation of law''), B (``awareness of conduct
at issue''), C (``harm to regulatory program objectives''), and D
(``individual characteristics''), with particular emphasis on Factors
A, B, and C. A case will be considered an ``egregious case'' where the
analysis of the applicable Factors, with a focus on Factors A, B, and C
indicates that the case represents a particularly serious violation of
the law calling for a strong enforcement response. A determination by
OEE that a case is ``egregious'' must have the concurrence of the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    2. Monetary Penalties in Egregious Cases and Non-Egregious Cases.
The civil monetary penalty amount shall generally be calculated as
follows, except that neither the base amount nor the penalty amount
will exceed the applicable statutory maximum:
a. Base Category Calculation and Voluntary Self-Disclosures
    i. In a non-egregious case, if the apparent violation is disclosed
through a voluntary self-disclosure, the base amount shall be one-half
of the transaction value, capped at a maximum base amount of $125,000
per violation.
    ii. In a non-egregious case, if the apparent violation comes to
OEE's attention by means other than a voluntary self-disclosure, the
base amount shall be the ``applicable schedule amount,'' as defined
above

(capped at a maximum base amount of $250,000 per violation).
    iii. In an egregious case, if the apparent violation is disclosed
through a voluntary self-disclosure, the base amount shall be one-half
of the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the violation.
    iv. In an egregious case, if the apparent violation comes to OEE's
attention by means other than a voluntary self-disclosure, the base
amount shall be the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the
violation.
    The following matrix represents the base amount of the civil
monetary penalty for each category of violation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE15.020

b. Adjustment for Applicable Relevant Factors
    The base amount of the civil monetary penalty may be adjusted to
reflect applicable Factors for Administrative Action set forth in
Section III of these Guidelines. A Factor may result in a lower or
higher penalty amount depending upon whether it is aggravating or
mitigating or otherwise relevant to the circumstances at hand.
Mitigating factors may be combined for a greater reduction in penalty,
but mitigation will generally not exceed 75 percent of the base
penalty. Subject to this limitation, as a general matter, in those
cases where the following Mitigating Factors are present, BIS will
adjust the base penalty amount in the following manner:
    In cases involving exceptional cooperation with OEE as set forth in
Mitigating Factor G, but no voluntary self-disclosure as defined in
Sec.  764.5 of the EAR, the base penalty amount generally will be
reduced between 25 and 40 percent. Exceptional cooperation in cases
involving voluntary self-disclosure may also be considered as a further
mitigating factor.
    In cases involving a Respondent's first violation, the base penalty
amount generally will be reduced by up to 25 percent. An apparent
violation generally will be considered a ``first violation'' if the
Respondent has not been convicted of an export-related criminal
violation or been subject to a BIS final order in five years, or a
warning letter in three years, preceding the date of the transaction
giving rise to the apparent violation. A group of substantially similar
apparent violations addressed in a single Charging Letter shall be
considered as a single violation for purposes of this subsection. In
those cases where a prior Charging Letter or warning letter within the
preceding five years involved conduct of a substantially different
nature from the apparent violation at issue, OEE may consider the
apparent violation at issue a ``first violation.'' In determining the
extent of any mitigation for a first violation, OEE may consider any
prior enforcement action taken with respect to the Respondent,
including any warning letters issued, or any civil monetary settlements
entered into with BIS. When an acquiring firm takes reasonable steps to
uncover, correct, and disclose or cause to be disclosed to OEE conduct
that gave rise to violations by an acquired business before the
acquisition, OEE typically will not take such violations into account
as an aggravating factor in settling other violations by the acquiring
firm.
    iii. In cases involving charges pertaining to transactions where a
license would likely have been approved had one been sought as set
forth in Mitigating Factor H, the base penalty amount generally will be
reduced by up to 25 percent.
    In all cases, the penalty amount will not exceed the applicable
statutory maximum. Similarly, while mitigating factors may be combined
for a greater reduction in penalty, mitigation will generally not
exceed 75 percent of the base penalty.

C. Settlement Procedures

    The procedures relating to the settlement of administrative
enforcement cases are set forth in Sec.  766.18 of the EAR.

    Dated: December 22, 2015.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-32606 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 55815]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0573; Summary Notice No. -2023-29]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Amazon
Prime Air

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0573
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 2023.
Brandon L. Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0573.
    Petitioner: Amazon Prime Air.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.7(a), 91.113,
135.25(a)(1), 135.25(a)(2), 135.205(a), and 135.243(b)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Amazon.com Services LLC, dba Amazon
Prime Air, seeks revisions to Exemption Nos. 18601B and 18602B to
provide 14 CFR part 135 package deliveries, with the use of its MK27-2
aircraft, and using its detect and avoid system to de-conflict with
other aircraft during beyond visual line of site operations, without
visual observers.
[FR Doc. 2023-17599 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70239-70240]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0961]

Recreational Boating Safety--2016 Nonprofit Organization Grants

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard requests public comments on whether it should
modify or move forward with its tentative list of topics on which it
would invite applications for Fiscal Year 2016 grants to nonprofit
organizations. These grants are intended to promote recreational
boating safety.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0911 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Carlin Hertz, Nonprofit Grants Coordinator;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments or related material on this
notice, and we may modify our tentative list of topics for Fiscal Year
2016 accordingly. The Coast Guard does not anticipate another FR Notice
to discuss any of the comments received but your input will be
considered in the development of the 2016 Nonprofit Organization
Grants. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for
this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Discussion

    Chapter 131 of Title 46, U.S. Code, requires the Secretary of
Homeland Security to maintain a national recreational boating safety
program, and gives the Secretary certain regulatory authority to
implement that program. The Secretary has delegated that authority to
the Coast Guard.\1\ Chapter 131 mandates annual allocations of funds to
State boating safety programs, and allows the Coast Guard to allocate
up to 5% of the total amount of those funds to the national boating
safety programs undertaken by national nonprofit public service
organizations.\2\ These allocations are made pursuant to statutory
guidelines that prescribe the purposes for which allocated funds may be
used.\3\ The Coast Guard annually evaluates the statutory guidelines to
determine how they can best be met in the coming fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.i).
    \2\ 46 U.S.C. 13104(c).
    \3\ 46 U.S.C. 13107(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Fiscal Year 2016, the Coast Guard has tentatively determined
that it will invite national nonprofit public service organizations to
apply for grant allocations in the following ``areas of interest'' we
have identified as well as other topics.
    1. Conduct Elements of a Year-Round Safe Boating Campaign. This
area of interest would conduct national campaigns throughout the year
that are coordinated with other safety initiatives and media events,
and would--
     Align with the National Recreational Boating Safety
Strategic Plan, particularly Objective 2: Boating Safety Outreach;
     Target specific boating safety topics and specific boater
market segments;
     Reach boaters at the local level;
     Educate boaters about the consequences of drinking
alcohol, taking drugs, or other irresponsible behavior on the water;
     Educate boaters about reporting boating accidents;
     Stress the importance of wearing life jackets;
     Educate boaters on the ``New Life Jacket Standards,'' as
published by the Coast Guard;
     Educate boaters on propeller strike dangers and avoidance,
particularly emphasizing the use of engine cut-off switch (lanyards and
electronic devices);
     Stress the importance of boater safety training; and
     Emphasize that boat operators are responsible for their
own safety and that of their passengers.
    2. Outreach and Awareness Conference. This area of interest would
use a single national conference to focus on the topics discussed under
the first area of interest, in support of the National Recreational
Boating Safety Strategic Plan's Objective 2--Boating Safety Outreach.
Conference organizers must focus on professional development
opportunities for conference participants while making every effort to
ensure affordability to gain maximum attendance. The conference must
provide opportunities for grant recipients, as appropriate, to present
results of completed grant projects and on plans for using new Coast
Guard

grants. Three to six months after the conference, the organizers must
survey participants on the long term impacts of the conference and
include survey results in their final report.
    3. Standardize Statutes and Regulations. This area of interest
would foster measurable standardization and reciprocity among State
boating safety statutes and regulations and how they are administered
and enforced, especially with respect to accident reporting, boater
education, and life jacket wear requirements. Hands-on coordination of
state efforts and the establishment of cooperative environments where
state officials can discuss issues regarding this topic are encouraged.
This standardization should be compatible with other State boating
safety efforts and promote RBS program effectiveness, the use of Coast
Guard-recognized boater education programs, and improved administration
of Coast Guard-approved vessel numbering and accident reporting
systems. A further desired outcome of this area of interest is an
updated comprehensive guide to State recreational boating safety laws
and regulations.
    4. Accident Investigations Seminars. This area of interest would
develop Coast Guard-approved curriculum and materials for seminars for
Federal and State recreational boating accident investigators in
support of the National Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Plan's
Objective 9--Boating Accident Reporting. The curriculum must cover the
requirements of 46 U.S.C. 6102 and 33 CFR parts 173 subpart C, part 174
subparts C & D (in particular the accident-reporting system
administration requirements of 33 CFR 174.103), and part 179. Between
four and eight 60 student regional seminars are desired, as well as
between two and four advanced courses at an appropriate location
designed to garner maximum participation at the lowest cost. Three 20-
student regional train-the-trainer seminars would also be required with
seminar locations agreed to with the Coast Guard. Each seminar would
reserve at least four places for Coast Guard marine investigators to be
assigned by the Coast Guard. Each regional seminar must cover an
overview of recreational boat accident investigations, witness
interviews, collision dynamics, evidence collection and preservation,
diagramming, and report writing with an emphasis on adherence to
definitions and detail in the accident narrative, with particular focus
on human factor causal elements. The advanced seminars must include
instruction in the investigation of video-simulated accidents with
actual recreational boats used as training aids.
    5. Life Jacket Wear Rate Study. This area of interest would provide
alternatives to achieving reliable estimates of nationwide recreational
boater life jacket wear rates. This estimate will directly address the
National Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Plan's Strategy 4.1--
Track and Evaluate Life Jacket Wear Rates. Plans presented should lay
out the advantages and disadvantages and projected costs of an annual,
biannual, and every three years study. Plans can include the use of
paid or volunteer observers, and must be based on actual observation of
a representative sample of boaters on high-use lakes, rivers, and bays,
ideally conducted in different locations at different times of the year
to accurately capture the impact of the seasonal nature of boating.
Methods for developing estimates must be replicable and must be able to
collect data by number, type, length, operation, and activity of boats
and by boater age and gender.
    6. Voluntary Manufacturing Standards Development. This area of
interest would develop and carry out a program to promote the
formulation of technically sound voluntary standards for building
recreational boats and associated equipment such as electronics.
Development of these standards will address the National Recreational
Boating Safety Strategic Plan's Strategy 7.3--Manufacturer Outreach.
The standards must help reduce accidents in which stability, speed,
operator inattention, and navigation lights are factors. For example,
standards could be developed for labeling flying-bridge capacity or
horsepower rating, or for minimizing operator distraction, or for
determining the effects of underwater or decorative lighting.
    7. Targeted Boating Safety Knowledge and Skills Awareness Training.
This area of interest would build a sustainable network of training
providers to target traditionally underrepresented groups in boating.
The program should have structured, engaging, in-depth opportunities
for learning basic boating safety and for practicing on-the-water
boating safety skill. The curriculum used must be based on appropriate
elements of the national skills standards being promulgated through the
ANSI (or other comparable) process and available currently in draft
form, and must compliment the national knowledge standards. This effort
must support Objectives 2 and 3 of the National Recreational Boating
Safety Program Strategic Plan--Boating Safety Outreach and Advanced
and/or On the Water, Skills Based Boating Education.
    8. ``Boating Under the Influence'' (BUI) Detection and Enforcement
Courses. This area of interest would develop and conduct train-the-
trainer and BUI detection and enforcement training courses for State
and local marine patrol officers, Coast Guard boarding officers, and
others. The goal of the training would be to give students the
knowledge and skills they need to deter recreational boater alcohol use
and alcohol-related accidents.
    Additionally, the area of interest would support the execution of a
focused national outreach effort to highlight the dangers of BUI
through education and enforcement. This outreach effort would be
targeted to run during a specified time frame during a time of high
boating participation to achieve maximum exposure. These courses and
outreach actions will directly address National Recreational Boating
Safety Strategic Plan Strategy 6.2, Train marine law enforcement
officers in Boating Under the Influence and Strategy 6.3, Expand
nationwide use of the validated Standardized Field Sobriety Tests
(SFST).
    9. Media ``toolbox''. This area of interest would develop a
``toolbox'' of methods and strategies to assist entities in carrying
out media and other awareness campaigns related to pertinent boating
safety messaging including, but not limited to, Boating Under the
Influence (BUI), life jacket wear, accident reporting, and boating
safety education. Any ``toolbox'' developed should include the use of
social media and other innovative techniques to be used in a prevention
campaign and should build on currently available boating safety
messaging. This initiative directly supports Objective 2: Boating
Safety Outreach.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: November 4, 2015.
Verne B. Gifford,
Captain, Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-29139 Filed 11-10-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80560-80561]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32067]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63559; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-109]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Rule
4.20--Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program

December 16, 2010.
    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 December 2, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 4.20 to require all Trading Permit
Holders or TPH organizations to conduct independent testing during the
first calendar year of becoming a Trading Permit Holder or TPH
organization. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at 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, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.20--
Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program to require all Trading Permit
Holders or TPH organizations to conduct independent testing during the
first calendar year of becoming a Trading Permit Holder or TPH
organization. CBOE Rule 4.20 generally requires annual (on a calendar-
year basis) independent testing for compliance. However, if the Trading
Permit Holder or TPH organization does not execute transactions for
customers or otherwise hold customer accounts, or act as an introducing
broker with respect to customer accounts (e.g., engages solely in
proprietary trading or conducts business only with other broker-
dealers), such ``independent testing'' is required every two years (on
a calendar-year basis). The Exchange believes that it is prudent to
amend this rule to require that all Trading Permit Holders or TPH
organizations conduct testing during the first calendar year of the
Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization's existence to ensure anti-
money laundering compliance is in place and established at the outset
of the Trading Permit Holder's or TPH organization's existence, even if
they would thereafter conduct such testing every two years.
    CBOE Interpretations and Policies .01 continues to provide that all
Trading Permit Holders should undertake more frequent testing than
required by Rule 4.20 if circumstances warrant (e.g., should the
business mix of the Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization
materially change, in the event of a merger or acquisition, in light of
a systemic weaknesss uncovered via testing of the anti-money laundering
program, or in response to any other ``red flags'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57044 (December 27,
2007), 73 FR 2 (January 3, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-130).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \4\ of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-CBOE-2010-109 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-CBOE-2010-109. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, 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 CBOE. 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-CBOE-2010-109 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32067 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 2, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2002-11463

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  LINEAS AEREAS AZTECA, S.A. de C.V.
                     Date Filed:  January 9, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination service between
Mexico City, Mexico, and Laredo, Texas.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  February 5, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Pierre Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                       Action date:
February 2, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 2, 2004, through
February 5, 2005.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http:/搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2664-2665]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2021-0068]

Reports, Forms, and Record keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on extension of a currently approved
collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends
to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2021-0068 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-
5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas LaBruna, Recall Management
Division (NEF-107), Room W46-438, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation, see 5 CFR
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: Petitions for Hearings on Notification and Remedy of
Defects.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0039.
    Affected Public: Businesses or others for profit.
    Abstract: Sections 30118(e) and 30120(e) of Title 49 of the United
States Code specify that any interested person may petition NHTSA to
hold a hearing to determine whether a manufacturer of motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment has met its obligation to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of vehicles or equipment of a safety-related
defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in
the manufacturer's products and to remedy that defect or noncompliance.
    To implement these statutory provisions, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 557, Petitions for Hearings on Notification and Remedy of Defects.
Part 577 establishes procedures providing the submission and
disposition of petitions for hearings on the issues of whether the
manufacturer has met its obligation to notify owners, purchasers, and
dealers of safety-related defects or noncompliance, or to remedy such
defect or noncompliance free of charge.
    Estimated annual burden: During NHTSA's last renewal of this
information collection, the agency estimated it would receive one
petition a year, with an estimated one hour of preparation for each
petition, for a total of one burden hour per year. That estimate
remains unchanged with this notice.
    Number of respondents: 1.

Stephen Ridella,
Director, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA.
[FR Doc. 2022-00830 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P