54405
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
180
/
Wednesday,
September
17,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
uncovered
a
problem,
thereby
preventing
further
violations.
(
GREAT
WEIGHT)
3.
The
violation
was
an
isolated
occurrence
or
the
result
of
a
good­
faith
misinterpretation.
4.
Based
on
the
facts
of
a
case
and
under
the
applicable
licensing
policy,
required
authorization
for
the
export
transaction
in
question
would
likely
have
been
granted
upon
request.
5.
Other
than
with
respect
to
antiboycott
matters
under
part
760:
a.
The
party
has
never
been
convicted
of
an
export­
related
criminal
violation;
b.
In
the
past
five
years,
the
party
has
not
entered
into
a
settlement
of
an
export­
related
administrative
enforcement
case
with
BIS
or
another
U.
S.
Government
agency
or
been
found
liable
in
an
export­
related
administrative
enforcement
case
brought
by
BIS
or
another
U.
S.
Government
agency;
c.
In
the
past
three
years,
the
party
has
not
received
a
warning
letter
from
BIS;
and
d.
In
the
past
five
years,
the
party
has
not
otherwise
violated
the
EAR.
Where
necessary
to
effective
enforcement,
the
prior
involvement
in
export
violations
of
a
party's
owners,
directors,
officers,
partners,
or
other
related
persons
may
be
imputed
to
a
party
in
determining
whether
these
criteria
are
satisfied.
6.
The
party
has
cooperated
to
an
exceptional
degree
with
BIS
efforts
to
investigate
the
party's
conduct.
7.
The
party
has
provided
substantial
assistance
in
BIS
investigation
of
another
person
who
may
have
violated
the
EAR.
8.
The
violation
was
not
likely
to
involve
harm
of
the
nature
that
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
EAA,
EAR
or
other
authority
(
e.
g.,
a
license
condition)
were
intended
to
protect
against;
for
example,
a
false
statement
on
an
SED
that
an
export
was
``
NLR,''
when
in
fact
a
license
requirement
was
applicable,
but
a
license
exception
was
available.
9.
At
the
time
of
the
violation,
the
party:
(
1)
Had
little
or
no
previous
export
experience;
and
(
2)
was
not
familiar
with
export
practices
and
requirements.
(
Note:
The
presence
of
only
one
of
these
elements
will
not
generally
be
considered
a
mitigating
factor.)

Aggravating
Factors
1.
The
party
made
a
deliberate
effort
to
hide
or
conceal
the
violation(
s).
(
GREAT
WEIGHT)
2.
The
party's
conduct
demonstrated
a
serious
disregard
for
export
compliance
responsibilities.
(
GREAT
WEIGHT)
3.
The
violation
was
significant
in
view
of
the
sensitivity
of
the
items
involved
and/
or
the
reason
for
controlling
them
to
the
destination
in
question.
This
factor
would
be
present
where
the
conduct
in
question,
in
purpose
or
effect,
substantially
implicated
national
security
or
other
essential
interests
protected
by
the
U.
S.
export
control
system,
in
view
of
such
factors
as
the
destination
and
sensitivity
of
the
items
involved.
Such
conduct
might
include,
for
example,
violations
of
controls
based
on
nuclear,
biological,
and
chemical
weapon
proliferation,
missile
technology
proliferation,
and
national
security
concerns,
and
exports
proscribed
in
part
744.
(
GREAT
WEIGHT)
4.
The
violation
was
likely
to
involve
harm
of
the
nature
that
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
EAA,
EAR
or
other
authority
(
e.
g.,
a
license
condition)
are
principally
intended
to
protect
against,
e.
g.,
a
false
statement
on
an
SED
that
an
export
was
destined
for
a
nonembargoed
country,
when
in
fact
it
was
destined
for
an
embargoed
country.
5.
The
quantity
and/
or
value
of
the
exports
was
high,
such
that
a
greater
penalty
may
be
necessary
to
serve
as
an
adequate
penalty
for
the
violation
or
deterrence
of
future
violations,
or
to
make
the
penalty
proportionate
to
those
for
otherwise
comparable
violations
involving
exports
of
lower
quantity
or
value.
6.
The
presence
in
the
same
transaction
of
concurrent
violations
of
laws
and
regulations,
other
than
those
enforced
by
BIS.
7.
Other
than
with
respect
to
antiboycott
matters
under
part
760:
a.
The
party
has
been
convicted
of
an
export­
related
criminal
violation;
b.
In
the
past
five
years,
the
party
has
entered
into
a
settlement
of
an
export­
related
administrative
enforcement
case
with
BIS
or
another
U.
S.
Government
agency
or
has
been
found
liable
in
an
export­
related
administrative
enforcement
case
brought
by
BIS
or
another
U.
S.
Government
agency;
c.
In
the
past
three
years,
the
party
has
received
a
warning
letter
from
BIS;
or
d.
In
the
past
five
years,
the
party
otherwise
violated
the
EAR.
Where
necessary
to
effective
enforcement,
the
prior
involvement
in
export
violations
of
a
party's
owners,
directors,
officers,
partners,
or
other
related
persons
may
be
imputed
to
a
party
in
determining
whether
these
criteria
are
satisfied.
8.
The
party
exports
as
a
regular
part
of
the
party's
business,
but
lacked
a
systematic
export
compliance
effort.
In
deciding
whether
and
what
scope
of
denial
or
exclusion
order
is
appropriate,
the
following
factors
are
particularly
relevant:
the
presence
of
mitigating
or
aggravating
factors
of
great
weight;
the
degree
of
willfulness
involved;
in
a
business
context,
the
extent
to
which
senior
management
participated
in
or
was
aware
of
the
conduct
in
question;
the
number
of
violations;
the
existence
and
seriousness
of
prior
violations;
the
likelihood
of
future
violations
(
taking
into
account
relevant
export
compliance
efforts);
and
whether
a
monetary
penalty
can
be
expected
to
have
a
sufficient
deterrent
effect.

IV.
How
BIS
Makes
Suspension
and
Deferral
Decisions
A.
Civil
Penalties:
In
appropriate
cases,
payment
of
a
civil
monetary
penalty
may
be
deferred
or
suspended.
See
§
764.3(
a)(
iii).
In
determining
whether
suspension
or
deferral
is
appropriate,
BIS
may
consider,
for
example,
whether
the
party
has
demonstrated
a
limited
ability
to
pay
a
penalty
that
would
be
appropriate
for
such
violations,
so
that
suspended
or
deferred
payment
can
be
expected
to
have
sufficient
deterrent
value,
and
whether,
in
light
of
all
of
the
circumstances,
such
suspension
or
deferral
is
necessary
to
make
the
impact
of
the
penalty
consistent
with
the
impact
of
BIS
penalties
on
other
parties
who
committed
similar
violations.
B.
Denial
of
Export
Privileges
and
Exclusion
from
Practice:
In
deciding
whether
a
denial
or
exclusion
order
should
be
suspended,
BIS
may
consider,
for
example,
the
adverse
economic
consequences
of
the
order
on
the
respondent,
its
employees,
and
other
parties,
as
well
as
on
the
national
interest
in
the
competitiveness
of
U.
S.
businesses.
An
otherwise
appropriate
denial
or
exclusion
order
will
be
suspended
on
the
basis
of
adverse
economic
consequences
only
if
it
is
found
that
future
export
control
violations
are
unlikely
and
if
there
are
adequate
measures
(
usually
a
substantial
civil
penalty)
to
achieve
the
necessary
deterrent
effect.

Dated:
September
9,
2003.
Kenneth
I.
Juster,
Under
Secretary
of
Commerce
for
Industry
and
Security.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
23499
Filed
9
 
16
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
3510
 
33
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
30,
31,
33,
35
and
40
[
Docket
ID
No.
OA
 
2002
 
0001;
FRL
 
7560
 
7]

RIN
2020
 
AA39
Public
Hearings
on
Participation
by
Disadvantaged
Business
Enterprises
in
Procurement
Under
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Financial
Assistance
Agreements
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
public
hearings.

SUMMARY:
This
document
announces
the
dates
and
locations
of
public
hearings
wherein
EPA
will
take
comments
on
its
proposed
rule
for
``
Participation
by
Disadvantaged
Business
Enterprises
in
Procurement
under
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Financial
Assistance
Agreements,''
published
on
July
24,
2003
at
68
FR
43824.
These
public
hearings
will
be
held
during
the
180­
day
public
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule,
which
ends
on
January
20,
2004.
EPA
will
publish
information
concerning
additional
public
hearings
during
the
comment
period
when
that
information
becomes
available.
EPA
also
will
hold
meetings
with
Tribal
officials/
representatives
during
the
180­
day
public
comment
period.
EPA
will
publish
information
concerning
such
Tribal
hearings
when
that
information
becomes
available.
DATES:
See
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
for
hearing
dates.
ADDRESSES:
See
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
for
addresses.

VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
16:
11
Sep
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
17SEP1.
SGM
17SEP1
54406
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
180
/
Wednesday,
September
17,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mark
Gordon,
Attorney
Advisor,
at
(
202)
564
 
5951,
Kimberly
Patrick,
Attorney
Advisor,
at
(
202)
564
 
5386,
or
David
Sutton,
Deputy
Director
at
(
202)
564
 
4444,
Office
of
Small
and
Disadvantaged
Business
Utilization,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mail
Code
1230A,
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
EPA
published
its
proposed
rule
for
Participation
by
Disadvantage
Business
Enterprises
in
Procurement
under
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Financial
Assistance
Agreements
on
July
24,
2003
at
68
FR
43824.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OA
 
2002
 
0001.
The
proposed
rule
and
supporting
materials
are
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
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
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information
is
(
202)
566
 
1752.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
identification
number
OA
 
2002
 
0001.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr.
Dates:
The
public
hearings
addressed
by
this
Federal
Register
Proposal
are
scheduled
as
follows:
1.
September
23,
2003,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
2.
September
24,
2003,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
Boston,
Massachusetts.
3.
October
22,
2003,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
Atlanta,
Georgia.
4.
November
13,
2003,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
Seattle,
Washington.
5.
November
18,
2003,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
Dallas,
Texas.
6.
January
13,
2004,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
Chicago,
Illinois.
7.
January
20,
2004,
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.,
San
Francisco,
California.
Addresses:
The
hearings
will
be
held
at
the
following
locations:
1.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development,
Wanamaker
Building,
Training
Center
Rooms
10A/
B,
100
Penn
Square
East,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19107
 
3380.
2.
Faneuil
Hall,
1
Faneuil
Hall
Square,
Boston,
Massachusetts
02109.
3.
Sam
Nunn
Atlanta
Federal
Center,
2nd
Floor,
Conference
Rooms
B
&
C,
61
Forsyth
Street,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303
 
8960.
4.
Jackson
Federal
Building,
North
Auditorium,
915
Second
Avenue,
Seattle,
Washington
98101.
5.
1445
Ross
Avenue,
12th
Floor
Conference
Room,
Dallas,
Texas
75202
 
2733.
6.
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
Room
331,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard,
Chicago,
Illinois
60604
 
3507.
7.
First
Floor
Conference
Room,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
California
94105.

Dated:
September
12,
2003.
Thomas
J.
Gibson,
Chief
of
Staff.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
23753
Filed
9
 
16
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
NC
106
 
200336(
b);
FRL
 
7558
 
8]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Implementation
Plans
North
Carolina:
Miscellaneous
Revisions
to
the
North
Carolina
State
Implementation
Plan
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
approving
the
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
revision
submitted
by
the
State
of
North
Carolina
on
April
4,
2003,
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
revisions
to
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
and
other
miscellaneous
revisions.
In
the
Final
Rules
Section
of
this
Federal
Register,
the
EPA
is
approving
the
State's
SIP
revision
as
a
direct
final
rule
without
prior
proposal
because
the
Agency
views
this
as
a
noncontroversial
submittal
and
anticipates
no
adverse
comments.
A
detailed
rationale
for
the
approval
is
set
forth
in
the
direct
final
rule.
If
no
significant,
material,
and
adverse
comments
are
received
in
response
to
this
rule,
no
further
activity
is
contemplated.
If
EPA
receives
adverse
comments,
the
direct
final
rule
will
be
withdrawn
and
all
public
comments
received
will
be
addressed
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
this
rule.
The
EPA
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period
on
this
document.
Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
on
this
document
should
do
so
at
this
time.
DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
October
17,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
by
mail
to:
Rosymar
De
La
Torre
Colo
´
n,
Regulatory
Development
Section,
Air
Planning
Branch,
Air,
Pesticides
and
Toxics
Management
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
4,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303
 
8960.
Comments
may
also
be
submitted
electronically,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
described
in
sections
I.
B.
1.
i.
through
iii.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
which
is
published
in
the
Rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Rosymar
De
La
Torre
Colo
´
n,
Regulatory
Development
Section,
Air
Planning
Branch,
Air,
Pesticides
and
Toxics
Management
Division,
Region
4,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303
 
8960.
The
telephone
number
is
(
404)
562
 
8965.
Ms.
De
La
Torre
Colo
´
n
can
also
be
reached
via
electronic
mail
at
delatorre.
rosymar@
epa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
For
additional
information
see
the
direct
final
rule
which
is
published
in
the
Rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register.

Dated:
August
28,
2003.
A.
Stanley
Meiburg,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
4.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
23581
Filed
9
 
16
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
52
and
70
[
MO
195
 
1195;
FRL
 
7560
 
1]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Implementation
Plan
and
Operating
Permits
Program;
State
of
Missouri
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
proposes
to
approve
the
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
and
Operating
Permits
Program
revision
submitted
by
the
state
of
Missouri
on
May
12,
2003.
These
revisions,
which
became
effective
on
April
30,
2003,
correct
all
deficiencies
described
in
the
March
25,
2002,
Federal
Register
Notice
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
16:
11
Sep
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
17SEP1.
SGM
17SEP1
