Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
* By email directly to
* 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-AF37.
The Department of Commerce's Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules may be found at:
On December 9, 2010 (75 FR 76664), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
This proposed rule would implement changes identified by BIS and the public that would make the CCL clearer. This rule would only implement changes that can be made to the CCL without requiring a multilateral regime change. However, BIS has identified changes that would make the CCL clearer, but would require a multilateral export control regime change to implement. The U.S. Government is developing some of those changes into regime change proposals for consideration by members of those multilateral export control regimes. BIS will implement those changes in separate rulemakings, if approved by the respective multilateral export control regimes.
This proposed rule will identify new phrases or headings within double quotations. The EAR identifies terms defined in part 772 with double quotations as well. Please note that not all of the terms set forth within quotations in this proposed rule are defined in part 772. The additional double quotations around new phrases, headings, or commonly used words, are used in the Background section of this proposed rule to assist in the readability of the text.
(1) Clarifications to existing CCL controls, including the use of the terms “parts” and “components” on the CCL;
(2) Changes to conform the CCL to the multilateral export control regime control lists and previous amendments to the EAR;
(3) Structural changes to improve the clarity of the CCL; and
(4) Removal of fourteen ECCNs subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The majority of changes proposed in this rule would amend the CCL without changing the scope of the controls. However, this rule does propose changes that would affect the scope of one ECCN. Specifically, this rule proposes to remove ECCN 8A918 and add certain marine boilers to ECCN 8A992, where they would be controlled for AT and UN reasons. This change is described in more detail below under the heading “ECCN 8A918.”
The bulk of the changes this rule would make to the CCL are non-substantive and would provide additional regulatory guidance to people classifying items subject to the EAR. One proposed change would be to clarify the scope of ECCNs by providing clearer definitions of the terms “parts” and “components,” which is discussed below. The changes BIS proposes in this rule in this section are limited to aligning with the definitions of “part” and “component” included in a proposed rule published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41958) entitled “Proposed Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML).” (hereinafter “the July 15, 2011 rule”) These proposed changes include adding
BIS is not attempting, with the proposed changes adding additional references to “parts” and “components,” to change the scope of what the affected ECCNs control. If, however, the public believes any such changes would change the present scope of the affected ECCNs, then the public should submit comments that identify such changes and explain how the changes would cause the ECCNs to deviate from their present scope. In addition, the public is encouraged to review the entire CCL to identify and comment on any other ECCN that uses the terms “parts” or “components” where additional changes may be warranted to conform to the intended scope of those ECCNs.
The proposed clarifying changes are as follows:
The placement of the phrase “(see List of Items Controlled)” is important for “parts” and “components” referred to in ECCN headings. If “parts” and “components” references appear before the phrase, then that means the entry only controls “parts” and “components” specifically identified in the “items” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section. If, however, the phrase is in the middle of the heading and the reference to “parts” and “components” appears after the phrase—such as “and specially designed “parts” and “components” therefor”—that means the ECCN would control specially designed “parts” and “components” for any item identified in the “items” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section. This rule does not address the definition of “specially designed,” which was proposed in a separate
BIS is not attempting, with the proposed changes to the headings, to change the scope of what the affected ECCNs control. If, however, the public believes any such changes would alter the present scope of these ECCNs, then the public should submit comments that identify such changes and explain how the changes would cause the ECCNs to deviate from their present scope. In addition, the public is encouraged to review the entire CCL to identify and comment on any other ECCN headings that could be made clearer.
The July 15, 2011 rule included proposed definitions for the terms “parts” and “components.” The July 15, 2011 rule proposed defining “parts” as “any single unassembled element of a component, accessory, or attachment which is not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of design use. Examples include threaded fasteners (e.g., screws, bolts, nuts, nut plates, studs, inserts), other fasteners (e.g., clips, rivets, pins), common hardware (e.g., washers, spacers, insulators, grommets, bushings), springs and wire.”
The July 15, 2011 rule proposed defining “components” as an item that is useful only when used in conjunction with an “end item.” Components are also commonly referred to as assemblies. For purposes of this definition, an assembly and a component are the same. There are two types of “components”: “Major components” and “minor components.” A “major component” includes any assembled element which forms a portion of an “end item” without which the end item is inoperable. For example, for an automobile, components include the engine, transmission, and battery. If you do not have all those items, the automobile will not function, or function as effectively. A “minor component” includes any assembled element of a “major component.” “Components” consist of “parts.”' References in the CCL to “components” include both “major components” and “minor components.”
Another example for applying the definition of “components” in the automobile context would be a fuel pump and the engine. Under this additional example, the fuel pump is a minor component of an automobile, as it is an assembled element of a “major component,” the engine. While the car will not function without the fuel pump, it is not a “major component” because it is integrated into a “major component,” the engine.
The July 15, 2011 rule indicated BIS would review the use of these two terms on the CCL and would likely make clarifications to CCL entries to conform to the proposed definitions included in the July 15, 2011 rule under a separate rulemaking. This proposed rule addresses the use of the terms “parts” and “components” on the CCL to ensure these terms would be used in a manner consistent with the proposed definitions included in the July 15, 2011 rule.
The terms “parts” and “components” have sometimes been used interchangeably in various ECCNs. The proposed definitions included in the July 15, 2011 rule were developed to provide clear, distinct definitions for each of these terms and other terms such as “end item,” “system,” and “accessories and attachments,” to align with the definitions of these terms in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). See 22 CFR § 121.8. Such distinctions are significant for purposes of determining whether an ECCN applies to an item to be exported.
Under the July 15, 2011, construct for the definitions of “parts” and “components,” if an ECCN does not include a control on “parts” or “components,” then that ECCN would not, by definition, apply to the export of any particular “parts” or “components” meeting the respective definitions. However, as referenced above, the terms “parts” and components” have sometimes been used interchangeably, so to ensure that once these definitions of “parts” and “components” are added to the EAR that the scope of existing controls are not narrowed, this rule proposes to add in additional references to “part” or “component,” in particular for ECCNs that are based on the multilateral export control regime control lists. Under the current EAR many of these ECCNs based on the multilateral control lists only list “components,” but not “parts.” However, the U.S. Government and other multilateral regime members have interpreted these ECCNs as also including “parts.” BIS proposes in this rule to add additional references to “parts” in these ECCNs, so the U.S. Government can ensure that it is meeting its multilateral export control regime commitments. Over the mid- to long-term, BIS will reach out to the respective multilateral regimes and discuss whether certain ECCNs should be limited to “components” or “parts” or some other subset of “components,” such as major components or minor components.
Many of the unilateral-based ECCNs on the CCL reference “parts,” but not “components.” For unilateral-based ECCNs, BIS has more discretion in whether these ECCNs should control “parts” and “components.” However, for consistency with the approach proposed for the multilateral based ECCNs in this rule and to ensure the scope of the unilateral ECCNs is not changed, this rule proposes adding additional references to “parts” and “components” as needed in the unilateral ECCNs to conform to how BIS has interpreted the scope of these ECCNs in the past.
To conform to the proposed definitions of “parts” and “components,” BIS is proposing a number of changes to the CCL to incorporate the terms “parts” and “components” in specific ECCNs. The primary purpose of these ECCN changes is to conform to those proposed definitions and to ensure that no changes are made to the current U.S. Government interpretation of these ECCN entries. The public should keep in mind the overall purpose is not to change the current scope of controls, but rather to clarify the scope of these ECCNs consistent with the July 15, 2011 rule definitions and how items are currently classified under these ECCNs.
These proposed changes would revise the following one hundred fifty eight ECCNs on the CCL where the term “parts” or “components” is used, as identified and described below in more detail:
This rule would insert “parts” and add quotation marks in the following 127 ECCNs and Notes:
1A001, 1A002, 1A004, 1A005, 1A006, 1A008, 1A102, 1A995, 1B001, 1B003, 1B101, 1B102, 1B115, 1B117, 1B118, 1B119, 1C007, 1C117, 1C230, 1C350, 1C355, 2A001, 2A991, 2B001, 2B003, 2B004, 2B005, 2B109, 2B116, 2B229, 2B351, 2B352, 2B992, 2B998, 2D351, 3A001, 3A003, 3A101, 3A201, 3A233, 3A292, 3A982, 3A991, 3A999, 3B001, 3B002, 3B991, 3B992, 3D982, 3D991, 3E001, 3E003, 3E982, 3E991, 4A001, 4A003, 4A004, 4A101, 4A994, 5A001, 5A991, 5B001, 5E001, 5A002, 5A992, 6A001, 6A002, 6A003, 6A004, 6A005, 6A006, 6A008, 6A102, 6A107, 6A205, 6A991, 6A992, 6A995, 6A996, 6A998, 6B008, 6B995, 6D001, 6E001, 6E002, 6E993, 7A001, 7A002, 7A003, 7A005, 7A008, 7A101, 7A102, 7A103, 7A104, 7A105, 7A107, 7D001, 7D101, 7E001, 7E002, 7E101, 8A002, 8A992, 9A002, 9A003, 9A004, 9A005, 9A006, 9A008, 9A010, 9A011, 9A012, 9A106, 9A108, 9A109, 9A111, 9A120, 9B001, 9B002, 9B003, 9B009, 9B010, 9B115, 9B116, 9D004 and 9E003.
In addition to the 127 ECCNs identified in the previous paragraph, this rule would also insert “parts” and add quotation marks in the Note to the Table on Deposition Techniques in the introductory portion of Category 2, Product Group E, and the introductory Notes to Category 5, Parts I and II.
This rule would insert “components” and add quotation marks in the following 12 ECCNs:
2A292, 2A994, 2B001, 2B201, 5A980, 6A203, 6B995, 8A992, 9A012, 9A106, 9A991 and 9B010.
This rule would reposition the term “parts” before “components” and add quotation marks to the existing terms “parts” and “components” in the following 12 ECCNs:
1A004, 1C002, 2A983, 2A984, 3A001, 4A994, 6A992, 7A994, 9A106, 9A991, 9B990 and 9E003.
In the July 15, 2011 rule, BIS proposed to define the term “components” to mean “components are also commonly referred to as assemblies. For purposes of this definition, an assembly and a component are the same.” BIS has reviewed the CCL to ensure the term “assemblies” is not being used redundantly on the CCL. This review has identified five ECCNs (5A991, 9A002, 9A003, 9B002 and 9D004) where the terms “assemblies” and “components” are being used in the same ECCN, but the term “assemblies” should be removed to avoid the incorrect interpretation that assemblies are different from components. This rule would add the term “electronic” before the term “assemblies” in 5A991 under “items” paragraphs (c.1) and (g) to distinguish the particular type of assembly that is intended to be controlled under this entry. With regard to ECCNs 9A002, 9A003, 9B002 and 9D004, the U.S. Government intends to develop a proposal to submit to the Wassenaar Arrangement that would propose the removal of the term “assemblies” from these ECCNs or propose adding more descriptive terms, such as “electronic” to clarify the scope of those other multilateral-based ECCNs.
This rule would remove reference to the term “assemblies” in ECCN 6A998, and add the term “components” in its place. As described above, this rule also proposes adding the term “parts” to 6A998.
Most ECCNs on the CCL contain a “related controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section. The “related controls” paragraph provides cross references to related ECCNs to assist the public in classifying items that are subject to the EAR. In some ECCNs, the “related controls” paragraph also includes cross-references to the export controls other U.S. Government agencies administer.
This rule proposes adding a number of additional “related controls” paragraphs or revising existing “related controls” paragraph to assist the public in classifying items. In responding to this proposed rule, the public may also provide suggestions for additional “related controls” that would assist the public in classifying items. This rule proposes revising the “related controls” paragraphs in the following twelve ECCNs: 1A985, 1B117, 1B118, 1B119, 1B225, 1C117, 1C233, 2B105, 2B116, 3A230, 7A103 and 9B009.
Lastly, this rule would revise the “related controls” paragraphs in ECCN 7A005 and 7A994 and include the substance of the amended related control paragraph as a new “license requirement note” in 7A994. This rule change would clarify the relationship between 7A005 and 7A994 and provide guidance on the appropriate classification for GPS equipment. The added text in 7A005 and 7A994 would alert persons classifying GPS items that “typically commercially available GPS do not employ encryption or adaptive antenna and are classified as 7A994.”
This rule would add the term “subject to the ITAR” to § 772.1 (Definitions of terms as used in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)). This defined term would be added to parallel the use of the term “subject to the EAR” that is commonly used in the EAR, along with simplifying many of the references to the export jurisdiction of the Department of State that are included in the EAR. The vast majority of these references to the export control jurisdiction of the Department of State are on the CCL. This rule would also add the following definition of “subject to the ITAR” in § 772.1:
This rule would make conforming changes to the rest of the EAR, including several ECCNs and §§ 734.4 (
This rule also proposes making the following changes to conform the CCL to the multilateral export control regime control lists and to conform the CCL to the intent of past amendments to the EAR. These are cases where a previous amendment to the EAR was intended to effect a change, but the change was not implemented as intended or where a conforming change should have been made to the CCL, but was inadvertently not made in a past rulemaking. This rule proposes to make the following conforming changes:
In implementing its commitment to exercise vigilance for the licensing of items listed on the Wassenaar Very Sensitive List, the United States has limited the use of License Exception TSR to a list of specifically identified countries for certain ECCNs. These limitations are contained in the TSR paragraph in the License Exception section of nine ECCNs (i.e., ECCNs 1E001, 5D001, 5E001, 6D001, 6D003, 6E001, 6E002, 8D001 and 8E001) that contain items on the Wassenaar Very Sensitive List and for which TSR has been authorized for some, or all of the ECCN.
The TSR paragraph limitation was introduced in 1998, upon implementation of the Wassenaar Arrangement (63 FR 2452), with a list of sixteen destinations eligible for TSR for Wassenaar Very Sensitive List items. Approximately one-year later Japan was added to the TSR paragraph limitation (64 FR 10852). In 2008, Australia and Norway were added to the TSR
This rule proposes to adopt a standardized list of countries under the EAR for the nine ECCNs. The use of this standardized list of countries would simplify the use of the TSR License Exception for these nine ECCNs and aid the public's understanding regarding what countries are eligible and not eligible to receive National Security (NS) controlled technology under these nine ECCNs. BIS has recently determined that the thirty six (36) countries listed in License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization, Section 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR, are eligible for License Exception authorization for Wassenaar Very Sensitive List items. These 36 countries are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, or the United Kingdom. This rule proposes to revise the list of countries in the TSR paragraph for these nine ECCNs to state “those 36 countries listed in § 740.20(c)(1) (License Exception STA).” The 17 countries (19 countries in 1E001) that were previously identified as being eligible for License Exception TSR under these ECCNs were a subset of the 36 STA-eligible countries. Therefore, this proposed rule would add the remaining 19 countries, except for 1E001 where this proposed rule would add the remaining 17 countries, as eligible countries to receive this type of technology through application of License Exception TSR under these ECCNs.
ECCNs on the CCL follow the same basic paragraph structure, although not all ECCNs contain the same paragraphs. The common paragraph structure is intended to allow the public to quickly review ECCNs and to identify relevant paragraphs in each ECCN. This rule proposes changes to the standard section headings that are used in most ECCNs on the CCL. These proposed changes would affect most of the ECCNs on the CCL, but would be implemented through instructions instead of setting out each proposed revision in the regulatory text. BIS is proposing the changes in the format to save on the cost of implementing these structural changes. BIS's decision also took into account that the proposed changes are not ECCN specific and are more focused on how the ECCN information is being communicated to the public. Each of the proposed structural changes this rule would implement improves the clarity of the CCL and is further described below.
This rule would revise the License Exceptions section heading to add greater specificity. This rule would revise the section heading by changing it from “License Exceptions” to the more specific section heading of “List-Based License Exceptions (See Part 740 for a complete listing of license exceptions and requirements).” This rule would also add a parenthetical after the revised section heading to provide a cross reference to the license exceptions part of the EAR. This rule would add this cross reference because a definitive determination regarding whether a license exception may be used for a specific ECCN can only be made after also reviewing the applicable license exceptions provisions in part 740 of the EAR.
In order to implement the changes described above under (A) Revision of License Exceptions section heading, this rule also proposes removing the License Exception STA paragraph in the License Exceptions section of the following forty-nine ECCNs: 1A002, 1C001, 1C007, 1C010, 1C012, 1D002, 1E001, 1E002, 2D001, 2E001, 2E002, 3A002, 3B001, 3D001, 3E001, 4A001, 4D001, 4E001, 5A001, 5B001, 5D001, 5E001, 6A001, 6A002, 6A003, 6A004, 6A006, 6A008, 6B008, 6D001, 6D003, 6E001, 6E002, 7D003, 7E001, 7E002, 8A001, 8A002, 8D001, 8D002, 8E001, 8E002, 9B001, 9D001, 9D002, 9D004, 9E001, 9E002 and 9E003. This rule would move the text of those License Exception STA paragraphs to a new section titled “Special Conditions for STA.” This rule proposes creating this new section immediately following the proposed “List-Based License Exceptions (See Part 740 for a complete listing of license exceptions and requirements)” instruction, because the License Exception STA paragraphs do not perform the same function as the other list-based license exception paragraphs. This rule does not propose any changes to the regulatory text included in the current License Exception STA paragraphs of these ECCNs. The changes proposed in this rule are limited to proposing a new section heading and then moving the existing License Exception STA paragraphs in these forty-nine ECCNs to the new STA section heading.
This rule proposes revising the “Country Chart” paragraph heading in the License Requirements section to add a parenthetical to indicate where the public can find the Country Chart. The revised Country Chart paragraph heading would now read “Country Chart (See Supp. No. 1 to part 738).” Not all ECCNs include a Country Chart paragraph and a small number of ECCNs do not rely on the Commerce Country Chart for determining destination-based license requirements. Most ECCNs, however, are structured to refer to the information contained in the Country Chart paragraph in Supplement No. 1 to part 738 to identify destination-based license requirements. The changes in this rule would clarify that for the ECCNs that use this structure, exporters, reexporters and transferors need to refer to the Country Chart in Supplement No. 1 to part 738 to determine destination-based license requirements. For experienced exporters, reexporters, and transferors, this structure is well understood. The new cross references would be primarily intended for those exporters, reexporters, and transferors who are new to the EAR and who may not as readily understand the relationship between this standard ECCN paragraph and Supplement No. 1 to part 738. The new parenthetical phrase at the end of the Country Chart paragraph would make the relationship explicit.
Some ECCNs include references to reporting requirements. They are typically found either in License Requirement notes or in notes to the “items” paragraphs in the List of Items Controlled section. BIS has adopted a standardized paragraph structure for ECCNs, as much as possible, to assist the public in classifying items. A standardized paragraph structure helps the public classify items by putting the information contained in an ECCN into a useable and easily recognizable format. The current reporting requirements, which are found in various sections and paragraphs of the ECCN, deviate from this type of standardized structure. This rule proposes to add a new section heading called Reporting Requirements where the existing reporting requirements found in ECCNs would be consolidated to address this issue. This rule does not propose any changes to the scope of current reporting requirements. This proposed standardized structure would aid in compliance with the reporting requirements and assist exporters in more quickly and easily identifying ECCNs subject to reporting requirements. The rule proposes adding the new Reporting Requirements section heading immediately before the License Exceptions section, which, as proposed above, would now be revised to read “List-Based License Exceptions (See Part 740 for a complete listing of license exceptions and requirements).”
To implement this change in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), this rule would remove the “License Requirements Notes” paragraphs in the License Requirements section in the following thirty-nine Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs): 1A002, 1C007, 1C010, 1D002, 1E001, 1E002, 2D001, 2E001, 2E002, 3A002, 3D001, 3E001, 4A001, 4E001, 5A001, 5B001, 5D001, 5E001, 6A001, 6A002, 6A004, 6A006, 6A008, 6D001, 6D003, 6E001, 6E002, 8A001, 8A002, 8D001, 8D002, 8E001, 8E002, 9B001, 9D001, 9D002, 9E001, 9E002 and 9E003. In these thirty-nine ECCNs, this rule would add the new section entitled “REPORTING REQUIREMENTS See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions, Special Comprehensive Licenses, and Validated End-User authorizations” after the License Requirements section in each of these respective ECCNs. This proposed rule would also make changes to the new Reporting Requirements section to ensure the text conforms to the listing
The CCL includes forty-nine ECCNs that refer to items that are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Department of State. They constitute approximately 10% of the total number of ECCNs on the CCL. Of the forty-nine ECCNs, fourteen ECCNs are subject to the export licensing authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 10 CFR part 110. This rule proposes removing these fourteen ECCNs from the CCL. The fourteen ECCNs are 0A001, 0B001, 0B002, 0B003, 0B004, 0B005, 0B006, 0C001, 0C002, 0C004, 0C005, 0C006, 0C201 and 1C012. The ECCNs that BIS proposes to remove are Nuclear Trigger List items, so the jurisdiction of these items is already established under U.S. export controls and, as explained below, there is no need to include this additional cross reference from the CCL to the controls maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
BIS's original purpose for including these ECCNs on the CCL was to supplement § 734.3 (Items subject to the EAR) under paragraph (b)(1), which describes items that are not subject to the EAR because they are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency of the U.S. Government, and to supplement the jurisdiction information for the other U.S. Government agencies found in Supplement No. 3 to part 730 (Other U.S. Government Departments and Agencies with Export Control Responsibilities). BIS also included these ECCNs to better align the CCL with the European Union's control lists that are primarily based on the multilateral export control regimes. However, by including references to other agencies' controls in specific ECCNs there is the potential that such ECCN references will become out of date if the other agencies update their respective regulations and the corresponding changes are not made in the EAR cross reference in a timely manner.
For example, on September 7, 2011 (76 FR 55278), the National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed various amendments to regulations concerning unclassified assistance to foreign atomic energy activities. These proposed revisions were intended to reduce uncertainties for industry users concerning which foreign nuclear related activities by U.S. persons are “generally authorized” under the regulation and which activities require a “specific authorization” from the Secretary of Energy. However, if the ECCNs on the CCL that currently refer to DOE and NRC controls are not updated, the uncertainties for exporters, reexporters and transferors would increase because of inconsistencies in the different regulations. Given that the DOE and NRC respective regulations are controlling in this area and these ECCNs are only acting as a cross reference, BIS is proposing the removal of these ECCNs.
BIS has determined there still is utility in including general cross references to other agencies' controls. Thus, this rule proposes to include a general cross reference at the beginning of the CCL in a revised § 774.1 (Introduction) that would contain those ECCNs that have been reserved and are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency of the U.S. Government. In addition, the related control paragraphs of ECCNs would contain cross references to controls of other agencies to the extent that such controls are similar to or related to the controls of certain ECCNs.
The remaining thirty-five of the forty-nine ECCNs refer to items that are “subject to the ITAR,” which is maintained by the Department of State. Given the ongoing review of the United States Munitions List (USML) that is being conducted under the ECR Initiative, it is premature to propose removing or revising these thirty-five ECCNs. In addition, given the number of cross references, in particular in Categories 7 and 9 of the CCL, to these thirty-five ECCNs, BIS determined that removing the ECCNs that are “subject to the ITAR” should be addressed at a later time once the review of the USML is completed.
The removal of the fourteen ECCNs should not impact the existing controls for items subject to the EAR. However, given the interrelationship between the fourteen ECCNs removed and the eleven ECCNs where conforming changes would be required, BIS is particularly interested in any comments regarding whether the proposed changes accurately capture the intent of the previous references (i.e., the references to the fourteen ECCNs that would be removed in the eleven ECCNs that are retained on the CCL).
The rule would make conforming changes to the following eleven ECCNs: 1A290, 1C107, 1C240, 1C298, 3A225, 3A226, 3A227, 3A233, 3A999, 6A005 and 6A205. This rule's proposed revisions consist of the following:
On the CCL, these six ECCN headings include references to some of the fourteen ECCNs that would be removed as a shorthand way of communicating the scope of items controlled. Therefore, the removal of these fourteen ECCNs would require that a broader description be added to the headings of the ECCNs that would be retained. If only one of the fourteen ECCNs that would be removed is referenced, then BIS believes that in most cases it is easy to incorporate the text of the removed ECCN into the heading of the ECCN that would be retained. However, there are certain ECCNs that contain multiple references to the ECCNs that would be removed. In the cases where multiple ECCNs are referenced, an effort to insert all the text into the headings as a conforming change would not be feasible. To address this issue, this rule would add heading notes, which would provide more space to describe the substance of the ECCNs that would be removed from the respective headings. The end of the revised headings would include a reference to the heading notes to alert persons classifying their items to review the heading notes as they determine whether their item in question was classified under the removed ECCN.
In § 774.1 (Introduction), this rule would redesignate the introductory text of the section as paragraph (a) with the heading “Scope of the control list,” and would add a paragraph (b) with the heading “ECCN cross-references for items subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency.” The introductory text of paragraph (b) would indicate that prior to the date of publication in the
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as tha