Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 66777 

(3) Airbus A300–600 Airworthiness 

Limitation Items Document AI/SE–M2/ 

95A.0502/06, Revision 11, dated April 2006. 

(4) Airbus A300–600 Airworthiness 

Limitation Items Document AI/SE–M2/ 

95A.1310/07, Issue 13, dated October 2010. 

(5) Airbus A300–600 Airworthiness 

Limitation Items Document AI/SE–M2/ 

95A.1310/07, Revision 12, dated June 2008. 

(6) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitation 

Items Document AI/SE–M2/95A.1309/07, 

Issue 8, dated October 2010. 

(7) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitation 

Items Document AI/SE–M2/95A.1309/07, 

Revision 7, dated June 2008. 

(8) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations 

Items Document AI/SE–M2/95A.0263/06, 

Revision 6, dated April 2006. 

(9) Airbus Industrie A300 Structural 

Inspection Document, Revision 2, dated June 

1994. 

(10) Airbus Temporary Revision 13.1, 

dated February 2011, to Airbus A300–600 

Airworthiness Limitation Items Document 

AI/SE–M2/95A.1310/07, Revision 13, dated 

October 2010. 

(11) Airbus Temporary Revision 3.1, dated 

April 2006, including attachment, dated 

April 2006, and including attachments dated 

September 2005, to Airbus A300 

Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document 

SEM2/95A.1090/05, Issue 3, dated September 

2005. 

(12) Airbus Temporary Revision 6.1, 

including pages 1 and 2 of Section D and 

page 1 of Section E, dated November 2006, 

to Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations 

Items Document, AI/SE–M2/95A.0263/06, 

Issue 6, dated April 2006. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

30, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27126 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 764 and 766 

[Docket No. 120207107–2565–01] 

RIN 0694–AF59 

Time Limit for Completion of Voluntary 

Self-Disclosures and Revised Notice of 

the Institution of Administrative 

Enforcement Proceedings 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

require that the final, comprehensive 

narrative account required in voluntary 

self-disclosures (VSDs) of violations of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) be submitted to the Office of 

Export Enforcement within 180 days of 

the initial VSD notification. This 

proposed rule also would authorize the 

use of delivery services other than 

registered or certified mail for providing 

notice of the issuance of a charging 

letter instituting an administrative 

enforcement proceeding under the EAR. 

It also would remove the phrase ‘‘if 

delivery is refused’’ from a provision 

relating to determining the date of 

service of notice of a charging letter’s 

issuance based on an attempted delivery 

to the respondent’s last known address. 

The Bureau of Industry and Security is 

proposing these changes to be better 

able to resolve administrative 

enforcement proceedings in a timely 

manner and provide more efficient 

notice of administrative charging letters. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than January 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The identification 

number for this rulemaking is BIS– 

2012–0043. 

• By email directly to 

publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include 

RIN 0694–AF59 in the subject line. 

• By mail or delivery to Regulatory 

Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Room 2099B, 14th Street and 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694–AF59. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Special Agent Kirk Flashner, Office of 

Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room H4514, 14th Street 

and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Tel: (202) 482– 

1208. Facsimile: (202) 482–5889. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS), Office of Export Enforcement 

(OEE), investigates possible violations of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) and orders, licenses, and 

authorizations issued thereunder. These 

investigations may result in allegations 

of violations that may be settled, 

adjudicated in an administrative 

enforcement proceeding, or referred to 

the Department of Justice for possible 

criminal prosecution. This rule 

proposes three changes to the EAR. One 

change addresses voluntary selfdisclosures in connection with OEE’s 

conduct of investigations. The other two 

changes address service of notice in 

administrative enforcement 

proceedings. 

Proposed Change Regarding Voluntary 

Self-Disclosures 

Section 764.5 of the EAR provides a 

procedure whereby parties that believe 

that they may have committed a 

violation of the EAR can voluntarily 

disclose the facts of the potential 

violations to OEE. Such disclosures that 

meet the requirements of § 764.5 

typically are afforded ‘‘great weight’’ by 

BIS, relative to other mitigating factors, 

in determining what administrative 

sanctions, if any, to seek. Section 764.5 

requires an initial notification, which is 

to include a description of the general 

nature and extent of the suspected 

violations, and is followed at a later date 

by a thorough review and narrative 

account of the suspected violations, 

including all relevant supporting 

documentation. If the person making the 

initial notification subsequently 

completes the narrative account, the 

disclosure is deemed to have been 

submitted to OEE on the date of the 

initial notification. The date of the 

initial notification may be significant 

because information provided to OEE 

may only be considered a voluntary 

disclosure if the information ‘‘is 

received by OEE for review prior to the 

time that OEE or another United States 

Government agency has learned of the 

same or substantially similar 

information from another source and 

has commenced an investigation or 

inquiry in connection with that 

information.’’ 15 CFR 764.5(b)(3). 

Currently, § 764.5 of the EAR does not 

include a specific time limit within 

which a narrative account must be 

submitted to OEE. Too often, initial 

notifications are not promptly followed 

by comprehensive narrative accounts, 

and as a result, OEE must maintain open 

files on voluntary disclosures for 

extended periods of time without 

making sufficient progress towards 

resolving the matter disclosed. To 

address these situations and promote 

expeditious resolution of self-disclosed 

violations, BIS proposes to set a 180-day 

deadline for persons who have 

submitted an initial notification to 

complete and submit the final narrative 

report to OEE. The Director of OEE 

could extend this 180-day time 

deadline, at his or her discretion, if U.S. 

Government interests would be served 

by an extension or upon a showing by 

the party making the disclosure that 

more time is reasonably necessary to 

complete the narrative account. Some 

illustrative examples of circumstances 

that might warrant additional time 

include the following. 

• Records or information from 

multiple entities and/or jurisdictions are 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
66778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

needed to complete the narrative 

account. 

• Material changes occur in the 

business, such as a bankruptcy, large 

layoffs, or a corporate acquisition or 

restructuring, and present difficulties in 

gaining access to, or analysis of, 

information needed to complete the 

narrative account. 

• A pending U.S. Government 

determination (such as a commodity 

jurisdiction determination or a 

classification request) is needed to 

complete the narrative account. 

The Director of OEE may place 

conditions on his or her approval of an 

extension. For example, while BIS 

generally obtains an agreement to toll 

the statute of limitations at the time that 

an initial notification is filed, in 

response to a request for an extension of 

the 180-day deadline, the Director of 

OEE may require a tolling agreement, if 

one has not already been obtained, to 

cover any violations disclosed in the 

initial notification or discovered during 

the review conducted to prepare the 

narrative account. The Director of OEE 

also has discretion to require the 

disclosing person to undertake specific 

interim remedial compliance measures 

as a condition of granting an extension 

to the 180-day deadline. 

Failure to meet either the 180-day 

deadline or an extended deadline 

granted by the Director of OEE would 

not be an additional violation of the 

EAR. However, that failure may reduce 

or eliminate the mitigating impact of the 

voluntary disclosure. The 180-day 

deadline serves as an incentive to the 

disclosing party, as meeting the 

deadline will allow information 

contained in the narrative account to be 

credited by OEE as having been 

voluntarily disclosed on the date of the 

initial notification, even if the 

information was not explicitly described 

in that initial notification. This new rule 

is consistent with the notion of an 

initial notification, which rewards 

promptness and which acknowledges 

that a disclosing party might not be able 

to identify all of the possible violations 

of the EAR at the time an initial 

notification was made. 

Imposing a deadline to complete 

voluntary disclosures is consistent with 

the practices of other agencies. The 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations imposes a 60-day deadline 

(22 CFR 127.12(c)). Similarly, the 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control also imposes 

time constraints by requiring that 

disclosures be made within a reasonable 

time following the initial notification. 

Based on its experience with voluntary 

self-disclosures, BIS believes that 180 

days is ample time to complete the 

narrative account in most instances and 

that requests for extensions will 

normally not be necessary or justified. 

Proposed Changes Regarding Providing 

Notice of the Institution of 

Administrative Enforcement 

Proceedings 

Section 766.3 of the EAR sets forth the 

procedures for instituting administrative 

enforcement proceedings. Those 

procedures include issuing a charging 

letter, which constitutes the formal 

administrative complaint. The charging 

letter sets forth the essential facts about 

the alleged violations and certain other 

information about the case, and informs 

the respondent that failure to answer the 

charges will be treated as a default. 

Respondents must be notified of the 

issuance of a charging letter by one of 

the methods listed in § 766.3(b) of EAR. 

One allowable method is mailing a copy 

of the letter by registered or certified 

mail to the respondent’s last known 

address. BIS proposes to add as an 

authorized method of notification, 

sending a copy of the charging letter to 

the respondent’s last known address by 

express mail or by a commercial courier 

or delivery service. BIS is proposing to 

make this change to facilitate the 

process of notifying the respondent in 

cases where the respondent’s last 

known address is in a country with a 

postal service that is inefficient or 

unreliable or in which postal delivery 

tracking information is not available. It 

will also allow BIS to select an efficient 

and effective method of notifying the 

respondent of the issuance of the 

charging letter. Moreover, unlike 

registered and certified mail, reputable 

commercial courier or delivery services 

and the U.S. Postal Service’s express 

mail use point-by-point tracking or 

similar electronic tracking methods to 

provide detailed records of a parcel’s 

delivery or attempted delivery. The use 

of services that provide detailed 

tracking information for parcels sent 

outside the United States will enable 

BIS to track and monitor the delivery 

status of pending notifications more 

efficiently and effectively. 

Respondents are required to answer a 

charging letter within 30 days of being 

served with notice of its issuance. 

Currently the date of service of notice is 

determined under § 766.3(c) by the date 

of delivery, or of attempted delivery if 

delivery is refused. BIS proposes to 

remove the phrase ‘‘if delivery is 

refused’’ from § 766.3(c) of the EAR. 

This proposed rule eliminates the 

requirement that an attempted delivery 

must involve documentation that the 

delivery was ‘‘refused.’’ The phrase ‘‘is 

refused’’ focuses on registered and 

certified mail, which include a 

postcard-sized hard-copy receipt that is 

returned to the sender after delivery or 

attempted delivery. This proposed rule 

provides for the use of reliable mail or 

delivery services that do not use such a 

hard-copy return receipt system and can 

efficiently and effectively track 

deliveries and attempted deliveries. In 

addition, BIS has found that in some 

instances foreign postal services do not 

return the receipt even though the 

parcel or package has been not been 

returned, including in situations where 

the respondent subsequently contacts 

BIS about the charging letter. Moreover, 

some foreign postal services do not list 

‘‘refused’’ as an option on a pre-printed 

return receipt or do not record other 

information when the package 

containing the charging letter is 

returned, including in situations when 

the package has been returned opened. 

This proposed change to § 766.3(c) 

would better enable BIS to determine 

the date of service of notice of issuance 

of charging letters sent to entities 

located in foreign countries. 

Since August 21, 2001, the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended, has been in lapse and the 

President, through Executive Order 

13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 

Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended most 

recently by the Notice of August 15, 

2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012), 

has continued the EAR in effect under 

the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS 

continues to carry out the provisions of 

the Export Administration Act, as 

appropriate and to the extent permitted 

by law, pursuant to Executive Order 

13222. 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). This rule is consistent with the 

goals of Executive Order 13563. This 

rule has been determined not to be a 

significant rule for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

2. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq., unless that collection of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 66779 

information displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. This proposed 

rule involves an approved information 

collection entitled ‘‘Procedure for 

Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations’’ 

(OMB control number 0694–0058). BIS 

believes that the changes to the 

voluntary disclosure procedures that 

this rule proposes would have no 

material effect on the burden imposed 

by this collection. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden to Jasmeet Seehra, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), by email to 

jseehra@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 

395–7285; and to the Regulatory Policy 

Division, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce, 

Room 2099B, 14th Street and 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 or by email to 

publiccomments@bis.doc.gov 

referencing RIN 0694–AF59 in the 

subject line. 

3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq., generally requires an agency to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to the notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute. 

Under section 605(b) of the RFA, 

however, if the head of an agency 

certifies that a rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the statute 

does not require the agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief 

Counsel for Regulations, Department of 

Commerce, submitted a memorandum 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, 

Small Business Administration, 

certifying that this proposed rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule would make three 

changes to the EAR. The first change 

would require that parties making 

voluntarily self-disclosures of violations 

of the EAR complete the process within 

180 days of making the initial 

notification or obtain an extension from 

OEE. The second change would add 

delivery by express mail and 

commercial couriers and delivery 

services as an acceptable method of 

serving administrative charging letters 

on respondents. The third change would 

remove the words ‘‘if delivery is 

refused’’ from one section to account for 

carriers with electronic tracking 

capabilities. The legal and factual 

background for these changes is detailed 

in the preamble to this proposed rule 

and not repeated here. 

The first proposed change would 

merely set a deadline of 180 days from 

the initial disclosure for parties to 

submit the narrative account that 

completes the disclosure as part of a 

voluntary self-disclosure. It makes no 

changes to the volume or nature of the 

information that an entity making a 

voluntary self-disclosure must submit to 

BIS. It does not create any new 

substantive requirements, but merely 

places a reasonable deadline on parties 

seeking to obtain the benefits of 

voluntary self-disclosure. If the 

disclosing party needs more than 180 

days, the party may request an 

extension of time from the Director of 

OEE. Although this proposed change 

may place some additional burden on 

parties making voluntary selfdisclosures, that burden would not be 

significant. 

The second proposed change would 

allow BIS to use delivery services other 

than certified or registered mail to effect 

service of charging letters, or 

amendments and supplements thereto. 

This rule makes no changes to any of 

the actions that any small entity or any 

entity must make in response to an 

administrative charging letter or any 

supplement or amendment thereto. The 

only potential impact on members of the 

public is the method by which they 

would receive notification, and this 

cannot be considered a significant 

impact on any entity outside of BIS. 

The third proposed change would 

remove the words ‘‘if delivery is 

refused’’ from § 766.3(c). This change is 

being made to update the EAR to allow 

the use of carriers that track shipments, 

which in turn better enables BIS to 

determine the date of service notifying 

respondents, foreign entities in 

particular, that a charging letter has 

been issued. Like the previous proposed 

change, this would not impose any 

burden on a member of the public. 

Although BIS cannot state with 

certainty the number of small entities 

that would be affected by this rule, any 

economic impact would be negligible. 

This rule does not increase any of the 

information that any party must provide 

in connection with a voluntary selfdisclosure of an EAR violation. It merely 

requires the disclosing party to 

complete the comprehensive narrative 

account of the violations within 180 

days of submitting the initial 

notification. BIS believes that 180 days 

would be an adequate amount of time 

for most voluntary self-disclosures. In 

those instances where additional time is 

needed to complete the narrative 

account, the rule provides that the 

Director of OEE may extend the 180-day 

deadline. In addition, BIS believes that 

the proposed change to allow for 

delivery by a commercial courier or 

delivery service is necessary in some 

cases to effect service abroad. Similarly, 

the proposed removal of the 

requirement that an attempted delivery 

is insufficient absent documentation 

that the respondent ‘‘refused’’ the 

delivery is necessary because express 

mail and reputable commercial courier 

or delivery services provide detailed 

tracking information concerning 

deliveries and attempted deliveries, and 

because some foreign postal delivery 

services may not document a refusal. 

Because none of these proposed changes 

would have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required and none has been 

prepared. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 764 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Law enforcement, 

Penalties. 

15 CFR Part 766 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Exports, Law enforcement, 

Penalties. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, parts 764 and 766 of the 

Export Administration Regulations (15 

CFR parts 730 through 774) are 

proposed to be amended as follows. 

PART 764—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation paragraph for 

part 764 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 

3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 

15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012). 

2. Section 764.5 is amended by 

revising the last sentence of paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) and by adding three sentences 

immediately following that sentence to 

read as follows: 

§ 764.5 Voluntary self-disclosure. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * (i) * * * If the person 

making the initial notification 

subsequently completes and submits to 

OEE the narrative account required by 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section such that 

OEE receives the narrative account 

within 180 days of its receipt of the 

initial notification, matters disclosed by 

the narrative account will be deemed to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
66780 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

have been disclosed to OEE on the date 

of the initial notification for purposes of 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The 

Director of OEE may extend this 180- 

day deadline upon a determination in 

his or her discretion that U.S. 

Government interests would be served 

by an extension or that the person 

making the initial notification has 

shown that more than 180 days is 

reasonably needed to complete the 

narrative account. The Director of OEE 

in his or her discretion may place 

conditions on the approval of an 

extension. For example, the Director of 

OEE may require that the disclosing 

person agree to toll the statute of 

limitations with respect to violations 

disclosed in the initial notification or 

discovered during the review to prepare 

the narrative account, and/or require the 

disclosing person to undertake specified 

interim remedial compliance measures. 

Failure to meet the deadline (either the 

initial 180-day deadline or an extended 

deadline granted by the Director of OEE) 

would not be an additional violation of 

the EAR, but such failure may reduce or 

eliminate the mitigating impact of the 

voluntary disclosure under Supp. No. 1 

to this part. 

* * * * * 

PART 766—[AMENDED] 

3. The authority citation paragraph for 

part 766 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 

3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 

15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012). 

4. Section 766.3 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 766.3 Institution of administrative 

enforcement proceedings. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) By sending a copy by registered or 

certified mail or by express mail or 

commercial courier or delivery service 

addressed to the respondent at the 

respondent’s last known address; * * * 

(c) The date of service of notice of the 

issuance of a charging letter instituting 

an administrative enforcement 

proceeding, or service of notice of the 

issuance of a supplement or amendment 

to a charging letter, is the date of its 

delivery, or of its attempted delivery by 

any means described in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section. 

Dated November 2, 2012. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27206 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0827; FRL–9749–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from architectural coatings. 

We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0827, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SCAQMD ............................. 1113 Architectural Coatings ............................................................................ 06/03/11 09/27/11 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1