[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68407-68408]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0051]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from five individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0051 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0051. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0051), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0051. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0051 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The five individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications
of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will
achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to

assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether drivers with
certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode
of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause
that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that
person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss
of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by
the ME in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver has had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year
period or more.
    As a result of MEs misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation,
numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified ME based on
the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, ``Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders,'' (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since that time, the Agency has published additional
notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the
regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (78 FR 3069).

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Scott Baggarley

    Mr. Baggarley is a 49-year old CDL holder in Washington. He has a
history of epilepsy, and has been seizure free since 2012. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same for over 2 years. His physician states that he is supportive of
Mr. Baggarley receiving an exemption.

Keith E. Hubbard

    Mr. Hubbard is a 37-year old CDL holder in West Virginia. He has a
history of seizures, and has been seizure free since May 2012. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Hubbard receiving an exemption.

Billy R. Hunter

    Mr. Hunter is a 34-year old CDL holder in Kentucky. He has a
history of epilepsy, and has been seizure free since 2012. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Hunter receiving an exemption.

Devyn R. Roberts

    Mr. Roberts is a 25-year old Class D driver license holder in
Kentucky. He has a history of seizures, and has been seizure free since
2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2016. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Roberts receiving an exemption.

Saundra Wesselman

    Ms. Wesselman is a 66-year old operator license holder in Indiana.
She has a history of epilepsy, and has been seizure free since April
2006. She takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since February 2018. Her physician states that she
is supportive of Ms. Wesselman receiving an exemption.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-23832 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60178-60182]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23628]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0601; FRL-9111-01-OCSPP]

Fluensulfone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes and removes tolerances for
residues of fluensulfone in or on multiple crops that are identified
later in this document. The Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested these tolerance actions under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 1, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received

on or before January 3, 2022, and must be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0601, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health emergency, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The
staff continues to provide customer service via email, phone, and
webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services, docket
access, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0601 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 3, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0601, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 28, 2021 (86 FR 33922) (FRL-10025-
08) EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E8861) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.680 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the sum of fluensulfone, 5-chloro-2-[(3,4,4- trifluoro-3-
buten-1-yl)sulfonyl]thiazole and its metabolite, 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-
ene-1-sulfonic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
fluensulfone, in or on the commodities: Beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.3
parts per million (ppm); Beet, sugar, leaves at 4 ppm; Beet, sugar,
molasses at 1.5 ppm; Beet, sugar, roots at 0.2 ppm; Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B at 20 ppm; Celtuce at 4 ppm; Fennel, Florence,
fresh leaves and stalk at 4 ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; Leafy greens
subgroup 4-16A at 4 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 4 ppm;
and Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm. The
petition also requested to remove established tolerances for residues
of the sum of fluensulfone, 5-chloro-2-[(3,4,4- trifluoro-3-buten-1-
yl)sulfonyl]thiazole and its metabolite, 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3- ene-1-
sulfonic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
fluensulfone, in or on the following commodities: Brassica, head and
stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 20
ppm; and Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 4 ppm because
these commodities would be covered by the new tolerances established
for the crop group conversions above. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by IR-4, the petitioner, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing one tolerance at a different level than petitioned for. A
discussion of this revision to the petitioned-for tolerance can be
found in section IV.C. In addition, IR-4 initially petitioned for
tolerances for multiple sugar beet commodities but withdrew their
request for these tolerances and the new use on sugar beet on April 8,
2021. EPA is therefore not establishing tolerances for the sugar beet
commodities.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA

defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This includes
exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does
not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA
requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and
children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance
and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for fluensulfone including exposure resulting from
the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with fluensulfone follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections
as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for
fluensulfone, in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to fluensulfone and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from those rulemakings that remain
unchanged as described further in this rulemaking.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of fluensulfone, see Unit III.A. of the fluensulfone tolerance
rulemaking published in the Federal Register of April 13, 2018 (83 FR
15971) (FRL-9975-76).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
fluensulfone used for human risk assessment, see Unit III.B. of the
fluensulfone tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register of
June 1, 2016 (81 FR 34896) (FRL-9946-07).
    Exposure assessment. This action converts existing crop group
tolerances for Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B; and Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4,
which were established in the fluensulfone tolerance rulemaking
published in the Federal Register of May 24, 2019 (84 FR 24042) (FRL-
9992-69), to new tolerances for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B;
Celtuce; Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk; Kohlrabi; Leaf
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; and
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. Although tolerance
levels for some commodities have changed as a result of these crop
group conversions, they have not impacted the residue estimates or
Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) used in the dietary
exposure assessment for the May 24, 2019 rulemaking for these
commodities. Therefore, the dietary exposure assessment remains the
same. For a description of the rest of the EPA approach to and
assumptions for the exposure assessment, including with respect to
dietary exposure, residential exposure, and cumulative effects, see
Unit III.C. of the May 24, 2019 rulemaking.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. of the May
24, 2019 rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that
determination.
    Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100%
of the aPAD; they are 21% of the aPAD for infants (<1 year old), the
group with the highest estimated exposure. Chronic dietary risks are
below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 4.8%
of the cPAD for infants (<1 year old), the group with the highest
estimated exposure. EPA concluded that the combined food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs above the level of
concern of 100 for all relevant exposure scenarios and are not of
concern. As the chronic dietary endpoint and dose are protective of
potential cancer effects, fluensulfone is not expected to pose a
dietary or aggregate cancer risk of concern.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to fluensulfone residues. More detailed information
on this action can be found in the document entitled, ``Fluensulfone.
Petition for Crop Group Conversions to Brassica Head and Stem Vegetable
Group 5-16, Brassica Leafy Greens Subgroup 4-16B, Leafy Greens Subgroup
4-16A, Leaf Petiole Vegetable Subgroup 22B, Kohlrabi, Celtuce, and
Florence Fennel'' by going to the docket established by this action,
which is described under ADDRESSES.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the May 24, 2019 rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The tolerance for crop subgroup 4-16B (20 ppm) is harmonized with
the Codex MRLs for mizuna and mustard greens; all other Codex MRLs for
crops within crop subgroup 4-16B are lower than 20 ppm. The tolerance
for kohlrabi (1.5 ppm) is harmonized with the Codex MRL for kohlrabi.
The tolerance for crop subgroup 4-16A (4 ppm) is harmonized with the
Codex MRL for spinach; all other Codex MRLs for commodities within crop
subgroup 4-16A are lower than 4 ppm. The tolerance for crop

subgroup 22B (2 ppm) is harmonized with the Codex MRL for celery. The
tolerance for crop group 5-16 (1.5 ppm) is harmonized with all Codex
commodities within the crop group except Chinese cabbage, napa, which
has a Codex MRL of 1 ppm. There are no Codex MRLs for Florence fennel
and celtuce.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioner proposed a tolerance value of 4 ppm for leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B based on the existing tolerance for vegetables,
leafy, except Brassica, crop group 4. Instead, EPA is establishing a
tolerance value of 2 ppm for crop subgroup 22B to harmonize with the
Codex MRL for celery. EPA analyzed the existing celery data, which
supports a tolerance of 2 ppm according to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation
procedure.

D. International Trade Considerations

    In this rule, EPA is establishing tolerances for fluensulfone
residues in or on the leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 2 ppm,
which is lower than the existing tolerance in or on vegetables, leafy,
except Brassica, group 4, which includes cardoon; celery; celery,
Chinese; and rhubarb (all at 4 ppm and all part of the leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B). The Agency believes this revised, lower
tolerance is appropriate because it is harmonized with the Codex MRL
for celery and is supported by available residue data.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of the changes to these tolerances in order to satisfy its
obligations under the Agreement. In addition, the SPS Agreement
requires that Members provide a ``reasonable interval'' between the
publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into
force to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to
adapt to the new requirement. Accordingly, EPA is establishing an
expiration date for the existing tolerance for residues of fluensulfone
in or on vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 to allow it to
remain in effect for a period of six months after the effective date of
this final rule. After the six-month period ends, this tolerance will
expire, as indicated in the regulatory text, and allowable residues on
cardoon; celery; celery, Chinese; and rhubarb must conform to the new
tolerance for leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B. This reduction in
the tolerance level is not discriminatory; the same food safety
standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically
produced and imported foods. The new tolerance level is supported by
available residue data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluensulfone
in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 20 ppm; Celtuce at 4
ppm; Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 4 ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.5
ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 2 ppm; Leafy greens
subgroup 4-16A at 4 ppm; and Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group
5-16 at 1.5 ppm.
    Additionally, the following existing tolerances are unnecessary due
to the establishment of the above tolerances: Brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; and Vegetables,
leafy, except Brassica, group 4. Therefore, existing tolerances for
residues of fluensulfone in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A
and Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B are removed, and to satisfy
international trade obligations, the existing tolerance for residues of
fluensulfone in or on Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4
expires six months after the effective date of this final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or to Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides, and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 22, 2021.
Catherine Aubee,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter 1 as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.680, amend table 1 to Sec.  180.680 following paragraph
(a) by:
0
a. Adding in alphanumerical order to the table entries for ``Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B''; ``Celtuce''; ``Fennel, Florence, fresh
leaves and stalk''; ``Kohlrabi''; ``Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup
22B''; ``Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A''; and ``Vegetable, Brassica, head
and stem, group 5-16'';
0
b. Removing the entries for ``Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A'';
and ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B''; and
0
c. Revising the entry for ``Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group
4''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.680   Fluensulfone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.680
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B.....................           20
Celtuce....................................................            4
Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk...................            4

                                * * * * *
Kohlrabi...................................................          1.5
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B........................            2
Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A................................            4

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16.............          1.5

                                * * * * *
Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4\1\.............            4

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This tolerance expires on May 2, 2022.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-23628 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28594]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-26555]

Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program

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

ACTION: Correction to final agency decision notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final agency
decision notice published in the Federal Register on Friday, July 11,
2008 (73 FR 40016). This document clarifies that the agency has used
and will continue to use traditional rounding in the New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP), not the round-to-even approach reflected in ASTM E29
``Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to
Determine Conformance with Specifications'' (ASTM E29).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Ms. Jennifer N. Dang, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone:
202-366-1740) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call Mr.
William Shakely, Office of the Chief Counsel (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to both of these officials at
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 11, 2008, NHTSA published a final agency decision notice
(73 FR 40016) announcing enhancements to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), which
provides consumers with comparative information on the safety of new
vehicles to assist them with vehicle purchasing decisions and to
encourage motor vehicle manufacturers to make safety improvements. In
the area of crashworthiness safety (how well the vehicle protects
occupants in the event of a crash), NCAP uses the 5-Star Safety Rating
system to communicate the relative performance of vehicles to
consumers. In the 2008 final agency decision notice, the agency
discussed how the star ratings are determined based on the relative
risk of injury to occupants, quantified as Relative Risk Scores (RRS).
The notice discussed the determination of the RRS and the use of ASTM
E29 ``Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to
Determine Conformance with Specifications'' (ASTM E29) to round values.
In actuality, since current NCAP requirements were instituted beginning
with the 2011 model year, NHTSA has been using the traditional rounding
method, in which the following rounding logic is used:
     When the digit after the last digit to be retained is less
than 5, keep the last digit unchanged (for example, in rounding to the
hundredths place: 0.453 = 0.45).
     When the digit after the last digit to be retained is
greater than or equal to 5, increase the last retained digit by 1 (for
example, in rounding to the hundredths place: 0.455 = 0.46 and 0.465 =
0.47).
    The ASTM E29 method and the traditional rounding method only differ
in instances when the digit after the last place to be retained is
equal to 5 and there are no digits beyond 5 (for example, when rounding
a number such as 0.455 to the hundredths place). The following rounding
logic is used in ASTM E29 and is known as the round-to-even method:
     When the digit after the last digit to be retained is
equal to 5, increase the last retained digit by 1 if it is odd, or
leave the last retained digit unchanged if it is even (for example, in
rounding to the hundredths place: 0.455 = 0.46 and 0.465 = 0.46).

Need for Correction

    While the agency referred in the final agency decision notice to
the ASTM E29 method, the traditional rounding method has been and is
the method used in NCAP. The traditional rounding method is also used
in the publicly-available ratings calculator that the agency releases
each year, which includes injury measures collected from NCAP's vehicle
tests.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ratings calculator is placed in the public docket each
year and can be accessed online by visiting www.regulations.gov. The
most recent ratings calculator for model year 2014 vehicles is in
docket NHTSA-2013-0053 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the final agency decision notice, the
agency was asked about its method of rounding injury values obtained
from its vehicle tests. This notice reiterates the agency's
longstanding rounding method, which is the traditional rounding method
(not the ASTM E29 method), used in all NCAP-related calculations to
generate vehicle safety ratings.

Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-11327 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33080]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-26-000]

Washington 10 Storage Corporation; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

June 4, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2008, Washington 10 Storage Corporation
(Washington 10) filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to section
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations. Washington 10 requests
that the Commission approve market-based rates for firm and
interruptible storage service, firm and interruptible park and loan
service and hub services consisting of interruptible wheeling and title
transfer at its facilities located in Washington Township, Michigan,
commencing on May 30, 2008.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 20, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13023 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OECA/ OC 2. OMB control number b. X None a_ 2020 0015 __ __ __ __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Assessment of Compliance Assistance Projects 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1860.02 9. Keywords Compliance Assistance Evaluations 10. Abstract The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is seeking approval for a three year generic clearance from Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) to determine how well EPA compliance assistance tools and services meet customers needs and to assess the effectiveness of the approaches. This will be a voluntary collection of information to gauge customer satisfaction with the compliance assistance projects, measure any resulting changes in knowledge and/ or behavior, and evaluate environmental and human health impacts. EPA proposes to use assessment surveys to provide the Agency with feedback on the compliance assistance documents, onsite visits, telephone assistance, Web sites, and compliance assistance seminars and workshops delivered by Headquarters and Regional compliance assistance programs to the regulated community. This feedback will provide EPA with the necessary information for improving the quality and delivery of compliance assistance tools and services. This ICR will only provide anecdotal data for the purpose of informing EPA of the effectiveness of compliance assistance tools, and customer satisfaction with those tools.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. x Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. x State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 25,676 b. Total annual responses 25,676 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 16 % c. Total hours requested 3,956 d. Current OMB inventory 19,470 e. Difference  15,514 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment  15,514 14. Annual reporting and record keeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. P Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of record keeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Record keeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Once 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Ms. Lynn Vendinello Phone: ( 202) 564 7066 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48601-48606]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 764 and 766

[Docket No. 120207107-3621-02]
RIN 0694-AF59

Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary Self-Disclosures and
Revised Notice of the Institution of Administrative Enforcement
Proceedings

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule requires that the final, comprehensive narrative
account required in voluntary self-disclosures (VSDs) of violations of
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) be received by the Office
of Export Enforcement (OEE) within 180 days of OEE's receipt of the
initial VSD notification. This rule also authorizes the use of delivery
services other than registered or certified mail for providing notice
of the issuance of a charging letter instituting an administrative
enforcement proceeding under the EAR. It also removes the phrase ``if
delivery is refused'' from a provision related to determining the date
that notice of a charging letter's issuance is served based on an
attempted delivery to the respondent's last known address. The Bureau
of Industry and Security is making these changes to be better able to
resolve administrative enforcement proceedings in a timely manner and
provide more efficient notice of administrative charging letters.

DATES: This rule is effective September 9, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Special Agent Richard Jereski,
Investigations Division, Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of
Industry and Security, US Department of Commerce, Room H4514, 14th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Tel: (202)
482-5036. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Export
Enforcement (OEE), investigates possible violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) and orders, licenses, and
authorizations issued thereunder. These investigations may result in
allegations of violations that may be settled, adjudicated in an
administrative enforcement proceeding, or referred to the Department of
Justice for possible criminal prosecution. On November 7, 2012, BIS
published a proposed rule (77 FR 66777) that set forth three changes to
the EAR, which are being implemented with some revisions here. One
change addresses voluntary self-disclosures in connection with OEE's
conduct of investigations. The other two changes address service of
notice in administrative enforcement proceedings. This rule also makes
non-substantive changes to the layout of the regulations to improve
readability.

Deadline for Completing the Narrative Account Portion of a Voluntary
Self-Disclosure

    Section 764.5 of the EAR provides a procedure whereby parties that
believe they may have committed a violation of the EAR can voluntarily
disclose the facts of potential violations to OEE. Such disclosures
that meet the requirements of Sec.  764.5 typically are afforded
``great weight'' by BIS relative to other mitigating factors in
determining what administrative sanctions, if any, to seek. Section
764.5 of the EAR requires an initial notification, which is to include
a description of the general nature and extent of the suspected
violations and is to be made as soon as possible after the violations
are discovered, and is followed by a thorough review and the completion
and submission of a narrative account of the suspected violations,
including providing all relevant documentation. If the person making
the initial notification subsequently completes and submits the
narrative account, the disclosure is deemed to have been submitted to
OEE on the date of the initial notification. The date of the initial
notification may be significant because information provided to OEE may
be considered a voluntary disclosure only if the information ``is
received by OEE for review prior to the time that OEE or another United
States Government agency has learned of the same or substantially
similar information from another source and has commenced an
investigation or inquiry in connection with that information.'' (15 CFR
764.5(b)(3)). This rule adds a requirement that the completed narrative
account be received by BIS within 180 days of BIS's receipt of the
initial notification for initial notifications received on or after the
effective date of this rule.
    The Director of OEE may extend this 180-day time deadline at his or
her discretion if US Government interests would be served by an
extension or upon a showing by the party making the disclosure that
more time is reasonably necessary to complete the narrative account. In
response to public comments discussed below, this final rule includes
some greater detail about what a request to extend the 180-day deadline
should contain. Such requests should show specifically that the person
making the request: (1) Began its review promptly after discovery of
the violations; (2) has been conducting its review and preparation of
the narrative account as expeditiously as can be expected, consistent
with the need for completeness and accuracy; (3) reasonably needs the
requested extension despite having acted consistently with (1) and (2);
and (4) has considered whether interim compliance or other corrective
measures may be needed and has undertaken such measures as appropriate
to prevent recurring or additional violations. Such requests also
should set out a proposed

timeline for completion and submission of the narrative account that is
reasonable under the applicable facts and circumstances. They should
also designate a contact person, and provide that contact person's
current business street address, email address, and telephone number,
for purposes of communicating with OEE regarding the extension request.
(A similar requirement to designate a contact person is included in
this rule regarding initial notifications). Extension requests may also
include additional information that the requestor reasonably believes
is pertinent to the request under the applicable facts and
circumstances.
    Some illustrative examples of circumstances that could, depending
on the overall facts and circumstances, support a request that
additional time is reasonably necessary include the following:
     Records or information from multiple entities and/or
jurisdictions are needed to complete the narrative account.
     Material changes occur in the business, such as a
bankruptcy, large layoffs, or a corporate acquisition or restructuring,
and present difficulties in gaining access to, or analyzing,
information needed to complete the narrative account.
     A pending US Government determination (such as a commodity
jurisdiction determination or a classification request) is needed to
complete the narrative account.
    The Director of OEE may place conditions on his or her approval of
an extension. OEE may obtain an agreement to toll the statute of
limitations at the time that an initial notification is filed. However,
if a tolling agreement that applies to any violations disclosed in the
initial notification or discovered during the review conducted to
prepare the narrative account has not already been obtained at the time
of a request for an extension, the Director of OEE may require one as a
condition of approving the extension. The Director of OEE also has
discretion to require the disclosing person to undertake specific
interim remedial compliance measures as a condition of granting an
extension to the 180-day deadline.
    Failure to meet either the 180-day deadline or an extended deadline
granted by the Director of OEE would not be an additional violation of
the EAR. However, that failure may reduce or eliminate the mitigating
impact of the voluntary disclosure. The 180-day deadline serves as an
incentive to the disclosing party, as meeting the deadline will allow
information contained in the narrative account to be credited by OEE as
having been disclosed on the date of the initial notification even if
the information was not explicitly described in that initial
notification. This new rule is designed to be consistent with the
existing requirement in Sec.  764.5(c)(1) that an initial notification
be made as soon as possible after violations are discovered. Section
764.5 also will continue to acknowledge that a disclosing party may not
be able to identify all of the possible violations of the EAR at the
time an initial notification was made, consistent with Sec.
764.5(c)(3), and to recommend that the review following the initial
notification should cover a period of five years prior to the date of
the initial notification
    Imposing a deadline to complete voluntary disclosures is consistent
with the practices of other agencies. The International Traffic in Arms
Regulations administered by the Department of State impose a 60-day
deadline (22 CFR 127.12(c)). Similarly, the Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control also imposes time
constraints by requiring that disclosures be made within a reasonable
time following the initial notification. Based on its experience with
voluntary self-disclosures, BIS believes that 180 days is ample time to
complete the narrative account in most instances and that requests for
extensions will normally not be necessary or justified.

Institution of Administrative Enforcement Proceedings

    Section 766.3 of the EAR sets forth the procedures for instituting
administrative enforcement proceedings. Those procedures include
issuing a charging letter, which constitutes the formal administrative
complaint. The charging letter sets forth the essential facts about the
alleged violations and certain other information about the case, and
informs the respondent that failure to answer the charges will be
treated as a default. Respondents must be notified of the issuance of a
charging letter by one of the methods listed in Sec.  766.3(b) of EAR.
One allowable method is mailing a copy of the letter by registered or
certified mail to the respondent's last known address. This rule adds,
as an authorized method of notification, sending a copy of the charging
letter to the respondent's last known address by express mail or by a
commercial courier or delivery service. The purpose of this change is
to facilitate the process of notifying the respondent in cases where
the respondent's last known address is in a country with a postal
service that is inefficient or unreliable or in which postal delivery
tracking information is not available. It also will allow BIS to select
an efficient and effective method of notifying the respondent of the
issuance of the charging letter. Moreover, unlike registered and
certified mail, reputable commercial courier or delivery services and
the US Postal Service's express mail use point-by-point tracking or
similar electronic tracking methods to provide detailed records of a
parcel's delivery or attempted delivery. The use of services that
provide detailed tracking information for parcels sent outside the
United States will enable BIS to track and monitor the delivery status
of pending notifications more efficiently and effectively.
    Respondents are required to answer a charging letter within 30 days
of being served with notice of its issuance. Prior to the effective
date of this rule, the date of service of notice is determined under
Section 766.3(c) by the date of delivery, or of attempted delivery if
delivery is refused. This rule removes the phrase ``if delivery is
refused'' from Sec.  766.3(c) of the EAR, eliminating the requirement
that an attempted delivery must involve documentation that the delivery
was ``refused.'' The phrase ``is refused'' focuses on registered and
certified mail, which include a postcard-sized hard-copy receipt that
is returned to the sender after delivery or attempted delivery. This
rule provides for the use of reliable mail or delivery services that do
not use such a hard-copy return receipt system and can efficiently and
effectively track deliveries and attempted deliveries. In addition, BIS
has found that in some instances foreign postal services do not return
the receipt even though the parcel or package has been not been
returned, including in situations where the respondent subsequently
contacts BIS about the charging letter. Moreover, some foreign postal
services do not list ``refused'' as an option on a pre-printed return
receipt or do not record other information when the package containing
the charging letter is returned, including in situations when the
package has been returned unopened. This change to Sec.  766.3(c) would
better enable BIS to determine the date of service of notice of
issuance of charging letters sent to entities located in foreign
countries.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    BIS received comments from one individual and four organizations.
Most of the ideas expressed in the comments related to the 180-day
limit for completing the narrative account. The comments generally
supported the 180-day limit. However, one commenter

proposed a shorter time limit with possible extensions. Other
commenters expressed concerns that in some cases 180 days would be
inadequate.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed approval of the 180-day limit as
providing adequate time to complete the review and compile the
narrative account in most cases. Both commenters noted the possibility
that extensions could be granted in limited circumstances. One
commenter recommended that the initial limit be set at 60 days, with
the possibility of successive 30-day extensions and that the acceptable
reasons for an extension narrow as the time since the initial
disclosure approaches 180 days. While acknowledging that many VSDs
likely could not be completed within 60 days, this commenter stated
that under its proposed procedure disclosing parties would better focus
on timely completion of voluntary self-disclosures without having to
request more than one extension. That commenter also asserted that a
60-day deadline would align BIS's practice with those of the
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
    Response: This final rule does not change the basic time limit of
180 days. BIS's intent in setting the 180-day limit is to provide a
basic time limit that is sufficient to complete the narrative
disclosure in the large majority of voluntary self-disclosures. BIS
believes that a party who has begun a voluntary self-disclosure process
should be mindful of the requirements of Sec.  764.5, including the
deadline imposed by the regulation, and should be capable of organizing
and managing its activities with the goal of meeting the deadline.
Similarly, in situations where more than 180 days' time is reasonably
necessary to complete the task, the disclosing party should be able to
explain the reasons why that is the case and provide a reasonable
estimate of the additional time needed. BIS further believes that
procedures proposed above likely would lead to repeated requests for
extensions (and related agency determinations and responses) that
should be unnecessary and would themselves increase the total workload
for all involved in the voluntary self-disclosure process.
    In addition, BIS does not believe that its deadline needs to be
``aligned'' in the sense of being identical to those of other
government agencies. The proposed rule did note that the 180-day
deadline is consistent with the practices of other agencies and
regulations, including in the Department of State's International
Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Department of the Treasury's Office
of Foreign Assets Control regulations. These examples were intended to
demonstrate that by proposing a deadline for completion of voluntary
self-disclosures, BIS is acting in the same general manner as other
agencies that have a role in export controls. BIS believes prescribing
a time limit that is reasonable with respect to EAR violations is more
important than having identical time limits with other programs.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that although the
180-day deadline should generally be sufficient, there may be instances
where the time limit would be inadequate. One commenter stated that
large organizations with operations in multiple countries may need to
obtain records from and interview employees at multiple locations in
order to complete an investigation and prepare a thorough final
narrative. One commenter noted that the proposed rule authorized the
Director of OEE to act at his or her discretion, which the commenter
characterized as authorization to act with ``unfettered discretion.''
The commenter also stated its belief that the rule would not afford a
disclosing party a regulatory right to an extension of time even if
circumstances warranted an extension. Finally, the commenter described
as ``not comforting,'' BIS's statement in the preamble to the proposed
rule that requests for extensions would, in most instances, not be
necessary or justified. Commenters recommended several changes, which
are described below.
    One such recommendation was to state in the rule the circumstances
that would justify an extension. Another recommendation was to state in
the rule that extensions would not be unreasonably refused when more
time is shown to be reasonably necessary to complete the account. A
third recommendation was to allow disclosing parties to submit, within
180 days of the initial disclosure, either a completed narrative
account or a supplemental filing that indicates the status of the
company's review, including interim remedial measures it has already
taken and an action plan with the company's timeline for completion of
the review and submission of the final narrative account.
    Response: BIS does not believe that it is possible to identify in
advance all of the circumstances that would make it in the government's
interest to grant an extension or those that would make an extension
reasonably necessary to complete the narrative account. The facts and
circumstances of each matter vary depending on, inter alia, the items,
destinations and parties involved, the nature and extent of the
violations, and the size, scope, and structure of disclosing parties
and their export activities and compliance programs. Therefore, case-
by-case requests by disclosing parties and decisions by an authorized
official are necessary. This final rule sets out in greater detail the
types of information that should be included in a request, and as with
the preamble to the proposed rule, the preamble to this final rule
provides illustrative examples of the type of circumstances that could
provide support for a request that additional time is reasonably
necessary. These examples are not an exclusive list, and extension
requests and the consideration of those requests will, of necessity, be
made on a case-by-case basis, but the examples provide guidance about
the type of situations that, depending on the overall facts and
circumstances, may justify an extension beyond 180 days. BIS believes
that in most instances 180 days should be adequate to complete the
narrative account. However, as discussed above, in appropriate
instances the Director of OEE may grant an extension to a person
seeking an extension of time. In most circumstances, tolling agreements
will be signed and agreed upon prior to the extension being provided.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed a desire for more precision
concerning the procedures for submitting a voluntary self-disclosure.
Specifically, they asked that the rule state precisely when the 180-day
time period begins to run and when during the 180-day period a request
for extension may be submitted. These commenters also asked for more
information about the timing of a request for an extension. They asked
whether a request for an extension may be submitted with the initial
disclosure, whether a request may be submitted after the 180 days has
elapsed, and what would happen if a disclosing party submitted a
request before the 180 days had elapsed, but too late for BIS to make a
decision and respond within 180 days.
    Response: BIS agrees with the comments summarized in the
immediately preceding paragraph that it would be more helpful to
provide more information about the procedures surrounding the 180-day
deadline and for requesting an extension than was provided in the
proposed rule. In response to those comments, this final rule provides
that guidance. This final rule states that, for purposes of calculating
the 180-day deadline, the date of initial notification is the date that
the initial notification is received

by OEE. BIS will notify the disclosing party in writing of the date
that the initial notification was received. To enable such
notification, BIS has added a new requirement that parties should
designate a contact person in their initial notification and provide
that person's contact information. For the narrative account to be
considered timely under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec.  764.5, the
disclosing party must submit the completed narrative account in time
for BIS to receive it within 180 days of BIS' receipt of the initial
notification or, where appropriate, seek and receive an extension from
BIS. As this rule indicates, however, initial notifications should be
sent so that they are received by OEE as soon as possible and narrative
accounts should be complete, accurate, and timely submitted.
    This final rule also states that to be considered, a request for an
extension of time to submit the narrative account must be received by
OEE before the deadline for receipt of the narrative account. The
Director of OEE will evaluate all of the facts and circumstances
surrounding a request and any related investigation(s) in deciding
whether to grant an extension. Requests for an extension should be made
as soon as possible once a disclosing person determines that it will be
unable to meet the deadline or the extended deadline where an extension
previously has been granted, and possesses the information needed to
prepare an extension request in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2)(iv)(B). Parties who request an extension shortly before the
deadline incur the risk that the Director of OEE will be unable to
properly consider and determine the request and communicate his or her
decision before the deadline. That said, BIS believes that disclosing
parties typically will need some time after the initial notification to
acquire the facts that may justify an extension and prepare the
extension request, including proposing a reasonable extended timeline
for the completion and submission of the narrative account. BIS expects
it will be rare for parties to request an extension of time in their
initial disclosure, because it is unlikely that disclosing parties will
have at the time of the initial notification all information pertinent
to an extension request or the ability to show that an extension is
needed despite prompt and diligent efforts to complete their review and
prepare a narrative account.
    The Director of OEE also is unlikely to grant extension requests
that appear be ``boilerplate'' requests not based on the particular
facts and circumstances, or to grant repeated requests or requests that
appear to be submitted on a routine, ``it can't hurt to ask'' basis. As
discussed in the preamble, this final rule provides additional detail
concerning the contents of an extension request, which should limit the
number of routine or boilerplate requests.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that BIS impose a reasonableness
standard as to both tolling agreements and remedial measures that may
be required when granting an extension. The commenter asserted that
tolling agreements extending back more than five years prior to the
initial disclosure have sometimes been required.
    Response: BIS understands that there may be times when meeting the
180-day deadline will not be possible (see discussion above); however,
as also discussed, BIS must be able to appropriately remedy matters
brought to light in a disclosure and will require (in most cases) the
signing of a tolling agreement to extend the statutory limit. BIS will
continue its practice of seeking appropriate tolling agreements and
remedial measures that take into account the specific facts and
circumstances of each case in requiring a tolling agreement and any
remedial measures.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that BIS specify what
constitutes a completed narrative account. The commenter suggested that
an explicit definition of a completed VSD would ensure consistency and
uniformity and lead to a more efficient and transparent process for all
parties. BIS could then request additional information or documentation
as needed. The commenter proposed that the elements set forth in Sec.
764.5(c)(3), (4) and (5) should satisfy the requirements of a voluntary
self-disclosure. This commenter also recommended that a disclosing
party who ``prepares a VSD in good faith that reasonably addresses all
applicable elements in Sec.  764.5(c)(3), (4) and (5), . . . should be
granted the presumption of acceptance as `complete' when received by
OEE.''
    Response: BIS agrees with this comment to the extent that it may be
helpful to the disclosing party to know when and how they can meet the
180-day deadline. To be considered a complete submission for purposes
of meeting the 180-day deadline (or the extended deadline if one is
granted by BIS), the voluntary disclosure must meet all of the relevant
requirements of Section 764.5 of the EAR, including paragraphs (c)(3),
(c)(4), and (c)(5). In response to public comments on the proposed
rule, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec.  764.5 in this final rule so
provides. In addition, as discussed in the preamble, paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) provides greater detail concerning the contents of an
extension request. Under paragraph (c)(2)(iv), a person making an
extension request may also submit additional information it reasonably
believes is pertinent under the applicable facts and circumstances. As
currently with regard to initial notifications and narrative accounts
submitted to BIS, OEE may seek supplemental information from a person
making an extension request after its receipt and review of the
request.
    Comment: BIS received several comments concerning informing the
disclosing party about the status of the investigation. One
recommendation was that BIS ``communicate the status of the
investigation of the voluntary self-disclosure, akin to the status
updates in SNAP-R'' (the system for electronically submitting export
license applications and certain other documents to BIS and monitoring
their status). Another recommendation was that BIS be required to
acknowledge receipt of a completed disclosure within some reasonable
time after its receipt. One commenter acknowledged that it is perhaps
impractical to require BIS to complete all action on a voluntary self-
disclosure within a specified time period, possibly 180 days, but
stated that it is practical to expect that BIS will dispose of a
voluntary self-disclosure as promptly as possible given the
circumstances of the disclosure. This commenter recommended that OEE be
required to send the disclosing party a status report within 180 days
of the receipt of the completed VSD and every 90 days thereafter.
    Response: BIS works to resolve voluntary self-disclosures promptly.
However, voluntary self-disclosures vary in number, size, and
complexity. In addition, other investigations and activities can affect
the amount of resources that BIS can devote to resolving voluntary
self-disclosures. Therefore, BIS cannot set a time limit for completion
of investigations made in response to voluntary self-disclosures.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed approval of allowing service of
charging documents by private courier. One noted that doing so would be
a modernization of BIS procedures.
    Response: BIS concurs.

Non-substantive Changes to Layout To Improve Readability

    In addition to the changes proposed in the proposed rule and those
made in

response to the public comments, this final rule reorganizes Sec.
764.5(c)(2) by breaking it into multiple designated paragraphs, each
addressing separate topics, with italicized headers to improve
readability.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule
is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has
been determined not to be a significant rule for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq., unless that collection of information displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This rule involves an approved information collection entitled
``Procedure for Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations'' (OMB control
number 0694-0058). BIS believes that the changes to the voluntary
disclosure procedures that this rule describes would have no material
effect on the burden imposed by this collection. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to
Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; and to the Regulatory
Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>referencing RIN 0694-AF59 in the subject line.
    3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or
any other statute. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if the
head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the statute does not
require the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulations,
Department of Commerce, submitted a memorandum to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Small Business Administration, certifying that this rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule adds a new requirement that parties that
decide to submit an initial notification should include their name and
contact information with the notification. This request for contact
information was not in the proposed rule. However, because the
requirement to include contact information in any voluntarily submitted
initial notification will not have a significant additional impact on a
substantial number of small entities or increase the economic burden
more than a nominal amount, no changes were necessary to the rationale
for the certification in the proposed rule (77 FR 66777, 66778,
November 7, 2012). BIS received no comments on that rationale and it is
not being changed for this final rule. Therefore it is not repeated
here.
    On August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, expired and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as amended by Executive
Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as
extended most recently by the Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699
(August 16, 2012), has continued the EAR in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration
Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to
Executive Order 13222.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 764

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Law enforcement,
Penalties.

15 CFR Part 766

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 764 and 766 of the
Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as
follows.

PART 764--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 764 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).

0
2. Revise Sec.  764.5(c)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  764.5  Voluntary self-disclosure.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Initial notification. (i) Manner and content of initial
notification. The initial notification should be in writing and be sent
to the address in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. The notification
should include the name of the person making the disclosure and a brief
description of the suspected violations, and should designate a contact
person regarding the initial notification and provide that contact
person's current business street address, email address, and telephone
number. The notification should describe the general nature and extent
of the violations. OEE recognizes that there may be situations where it
will not be practical to make an initial notification in writing. For
example, written notification may not be practical if a shipment leaves
the United States without the required license, yet there is still an
opportunity to prevent acquisition of the items by unauthorized
persons. In such situations, OEE should be contacted promptly at the
office listed in paragraph (c)(7) of this section.
    (ii) Initial notification date. For purposes of calculating when a
complete narrative account must be submitted under paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, the initial notification date is the date
the notification is received by OEE. OEE will notify the disclosing
party in writing of the date that it receives the initial notification.
At OEE's discretion, such writing from OEE may be on paper, or in an
email message or facsimile transmission from OEE, or by any other
method for the transmission of written communications. Where it is not
practical to make an initial notification in writing, the person making
the notification should confirm the oral notification in writing as
soon as possible.
    (iii) Timely completion of narrative accounts. The narrative
account required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section must be received
by OEE within 180 days of the initial notification date for purposes of
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, absent an extension from the Director
of OEE. If the person making

the initial notification subsequently completes and submits to OEE the
narrative account required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section such
that OEE receives it within 180 days of the initial notification date,
or within the additional time, if any, granted by the Director of OEE
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section, the disclosure,
including violations disclosed in the narrative account that were not
expressly mentioned in the initial notification, will be deemed to have
been made on the initial notification date for purposes of paragraph
(b)(3) of this section if the initial notification was made in
compliance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. Failure to
meet the deadline (either the initial 180-day deadline or an extended
deadline granted by the Director of OEE) would not be an additional
violation of the EAR, but such failure may reduce or eliminate the
mitigating impact of the voluntary disclosure under Supplement No. 1 to
this part. For purposes of determining whether the deadline has been
met under this paragraph, a complete narrative account must contain all
of the pertinent information called for in paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4),
and (c)(5) of this section, and the voluntary self-disclosure must
otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
    (iv) Deadline extensions. The Director of OEE may extend the 180-
day deadline upon a determination in his or her discretion that U.S.
Government interests would be served by an extension or that the person
making the initial notification has shown that more than 180 days is
reasonably needed to complete the narrative account.
    (A) Conditions for extension. The Director of OEE in his or her
discretion may place conditions on the approval of an extension. For
example, the Director of OEE may require that the disclosing person
agree to toll the statute of limitations with respect to violations
disclosed in the initial notification or discovered during the review
for or preparation of the narrative account, and/or require the
disclosing person to undertake specified interim remedial compliance
measures.
    (B) Contents of Request. (1) In most instances 180 days should be
adequate to complete the narrative account. Requests to extend the 180-
day deadline set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section will be
determined by the Director of OEE pursuant to his or her authority
under this paragraph (c)(2)(iv) based upon his consideration and
evaluation of U.S. Government interests and the facts and circumstances
surrounding the request and any related investigations. Such requests
should show specifically that the person making the request:
    (i) Began its review promptly after discovery of the violations;
    (ii) Has been conducting its review and preparation of the
narrative account as expeditiously as can be expected, consistent with
the need for completeness and accuracy;
    (iii) Reasonably needs the requested extension despite having begun
its review promptly after discovery of the violations and having
conducted its review and preparation of the narrative account as
expeditiously as can be expected consistent with the need for
completeness and accuracy; and
    (iv) Has considered whether interim compliance or other corrective
measures may be needed and has undertaken such measures as appropriate
to prevent recurring or additional violations.
    (2) Such requests also should set out a proposed timeline for
completion and submission of the narrative account that is reasonable
under the applicable facts and circumstances, and should also designate
a contact person regarding the request and provide that contact
person's current business street address, email address, and telephone
number. Requests may also include additional information that the
person making the request reasonably believes is pertinent to the
request under the applicable facts and circumstances.
    (C) Timing of requests. Requests for an extension should be made
before the 180-day deadline and as soon as possible once a disclosing
person determines that it will be unable to meet the deadline or the
extended deadline where an extension previously has been granted, and
possesses the information needed to prepare an extension request in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B) of this section. Requests for
extension that are not received before the deadline for completing the
narrative account has passed will not be considered. Parties who
request an extension shortly before the deadline incur the risk that
the Director of OEE will be unable to consider the request, determine
whether or not to grant the extension, and communicate his or her
decision before the deadline, and that any subsequently submitted
narrative account will be considered untimely under paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *

PART 766--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation paragraph for part 766 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).

0
4. Section 766.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  766.3  Institution of administrative enforcement proceedings.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) By sending a copy by registered or certified mail or by express
mail or commercial courier or delivery service addressed to the
respondent at the respondent's last known address;
    * * *
    (c) The date of service of notice of the issuance of a charging
letter instituting an administrative enforcement proceeding, or service
of notice of the issuance of a supplement or amendment to a charging
letter, is the date of its delivery, or of its attempted delivery, by
any means described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    Dated August 5, 2013.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-19364 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67781-67782]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23568]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90226; File No. SR-Phlx-2020-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Options on a Nasdaq-100[supreg] Volatility
Index

October 20, 2020.
    On August 24, 2020, Nasdaq PHLX LLC filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade options on a
Nasdaq-100[supreg] Volatility Index. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 8, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89725 (September 1,
2020), 85 FR 55544 (SR-Phlx-2020-41) (``Notice''). Comment received
on the Notice is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2020-41/srphlx202041.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the Notice for the proposed rule change
is October 23, 2020. The Commission is extending this 45-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designates December 7,
2020, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2020-41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23568 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P