Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Military Vehicles and Related Items That the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control on the United States Munitions List, 76085-76096 [2011-30976]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• Bureau of Industry and Security

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76085-76096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 742, 770 and 774

[Docket No. 110310188-1621-02]
RIN 0694-AF17


Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control 
of Military Vehicles and Related Items That the President Determines No 
Longer Warrant Control on the United States Munitions List

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security publishes a third proposed 
rule that describes how articles the President determines no longer 
warrant control under Category VII (military vehicles and related 
articles) of the United States Munitions List (USML) would be 
controlled under the Commerce Control List (CCL). This proposed rule 
would re-propose, with certain changes, five new Export Control 
Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on the Commerce Control List (CCL) that 
were proposed in a proposed rule published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 
41958). The revised ECCNs in this proposed rule are the result of 
continued deliberations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State and recommendations 
of commenters on the July 15 proposed rule. This proposed rule is being 
published in conjunction with a proposed rule by the Department of 
State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to remove from Category 
VII of the USML (22 CFR 121.1, Category VII) articles that the 
President determines no longer warrant control on the USML.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2011-0040.
     By email directly to: publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include 
RIN 0694-AF17 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-AF17.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Christiansen, Office of National 
Security and Technology Transfer Controls, 202 482 2984, 
gene.christiansen@bis.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON:

Background

    On July 15, 2011, as part of the Administration's ongoing Export 
Control Reform Initiative, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) 
published a proposed rule (76 FR 41958) that set forth a framework for 
how articles the President determines, in accordance with section 38(f) 
of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), would no 
longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List (USML) would 
be controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL). In that proposed 
rule, BIS also described its proposal for how military vehicles and 
related articles in USML Category VII that no longer warrant controls 
under the USML would be controlled on the CCL. On November 7, 2011, BIS 
published a proposed rule (76 FR 68675)) that sets forth how aircraft 
and related items the President determines to no longer warrant control 
on the USML would be controlled on the CCL (herein, the aircraft 
proposed rule). In that proposed rule, BIS made several changes and 
additions to the framework proposed in the July 15 proposed rule. 
Following the structure of the July 15 proposed rule, as modified by 
the rule published on November 7, this proposed rule describes BIS's 
revised proposal for how various military vehicles and related articles 
that are controlled by USML Category VII would be controlled on the 
CCL.
    The changes described in this proposed rule and the State 
Department's proposed amendment to Category VII of the USML are based 
on a review of Category VII by the Defense Department, which worked 
with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the proposed 
amendments. The review was focused on identifying the types of articles 
that are now controlled by USML Category VII that either (i) Are 
inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML, or (ii) 
if of a type common to civil vehicles, possess parameters or 
characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence 
advantage to the United States and that are almost exclusively 
available from the United States. For articles that satisfy one or both 
of those criteria, the review resulted in the article's remaining on 
the USML. An article that did not satisfy either standard but was 
nonetheless a type of article that is, as a result of differences in 
form and fit, ``specially designed'' for military applications, would 
be identified in the new ECCNs proposed in this notice.
    The license requirements and other EAR-specific controls for such 
items also described in this notice would enhance national security by 
(i) Allowing for greater interoperability with our NATO and other 
allies while still maintaining and expanding robust controls and, in 
some cases, prohibitions on exports or reexports to other countries and 
for proscribed end users and end uses; (ii) enhancing our defense 
industrial base by, for example, reducing the current incentives for 
foreign companies to design out or avoid U.S.-origin ITAR-controlled 
content, particularly with respect to generic, unspecified parts and 
components; and (iii) permitting the U.S. Government to focus its 
resources on controlling, monitoring, investigating, analyzing, and, if 
need be, prohibiting exports and reexports of more significant items to 
destinations, end uses, and end users of greater concern than our NATO 
allies and other multi-regime partners.
    Pursuant to section 38(f) of the AECA, the President shall review 
the USML ``to determine what items, if any, no longer warrant export 
controls under'' the

[[Page 76086]]

AECA. The President must report the results of the review to Congress 
and wait 30 days before removing any such items from the USML. The 
report must ``describe the nature of any controls to be imposed on that 
item under any other provision of law.'' 22 U.S.C. 2778(f)(1). This 
proposed rule describes how certain military vehicles and related 
articles in USML Category VII would be controlled by the EAR and its 
CCL if the President determines that the articles no longer warrant 
control on the USML.
    In the July 15 proposed rule, BIS proposed creating a series of new 
ECCNs to control articles that would be moved from the USML to the CCL 
or that are Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional 
Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies Munitions List (WAML) items 
already controlled elsewhere on the CCL. The proposed rule referred to 
this series as the ``600 series'' because the third character in each 
of the new ECCNs would be a ``6.'' The first two characters of the 600 
series ECCNs serve the same function as any other ECCN as described in 
Sec.  738.2 of the EAR. The first character is a digit in the range 0 
through 9 that identifies the Category on the CCL in which the ECCN is 
located. The second character is a letter in the range A through E that 
identifies the product group within a CCL Category. In the 600 series, 
the third character is the number 6. With few exceptions, the final two 
characters identify the WAML category that covers items that are the 
same or similar to items in a particular 600 series ECCN.
    The July 15 proposed rule specifically proposed creating five new 
``600 series'' ECCNs (0A606, 0B606, 0C606, 0D606 and 0E606). This 
proposed rule re-proposes, with certain changes, those ECCNs based on 
review of the public comments on the July 15 proposed rule and on 
further deliberations by BIS, the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State.
    BIS will publish additional Federal Register notices containing 
proposed amendments to the CCL that will describe proposed controls for 
additional categories of articles the President determines no longer 
warrant control under the USML. The State Department will publish 
concurrently proposed amendments to the USML that correspond to the BIS 
notices. BIS will also publish proposed rules to further align the CCL 
with the WAML and the Missile Technology Control Regime Equipment, 
Software and Technology Annex.

Comments Regarding ECCNs 0A606, 0B606, 0C606, 0D606 and 0E606 in the 
July 15 Proposed Rule

    The comment period for the July 15 proposed rule ended on September 
13, 2011. Some of the comments that BIS received concerned exclusively 
the text of the proposed new ECCN 0A606, 0B606, 0C606, 0D606 and 0E606. 
BIS has adopted some of the recommendations in those comments and 
incorporated them into this proposed rule. BIS will continue to 
consider some of those comments and will make a decision whether or not 
to adopt their recommendations in any final rule concerning those new 
ECCNs.

Comment 1

    Two commenters recommended removing the modifier ``non-combat'' 
from the description of military support vehicles in 0A606.b.5 so that 
any combat vehicles that are not described in the USML will not 
inadvertently become EAR99. One commenter offered the additional 
rationale that that the distinction between combat and non-combat 
military vehicles is not always clear. Some vehicles such as tow trucks 
and ambulances may have armor and be used in combat zones.

Response

    BIS has not adopted this recommendation exactly as proposed, but 
has modified proposed ECCN 0A606 in a way that it believes would 
address the concerns of these commenters. As modified, ECCN 0A606 would 
apply explicitly to military vehicles not listed in Category VII of the 
USML. BIS believes that the explicit requirement that a military 
vehicles not be on the USML in order to be classified under 0A606 
reduces the likelihood that a reader would conclude that vehicles not 
classified under 0A606 are EAR99. The modified ECCN 0A606 also does not 
use the phrase ``non-combat,'' which eliminates the need to make 
decisions as to whether a particular military vehicle is also a combat 
vehicle.

Comment 2

    These same commenters in Comment 1 recommending adding the phrase 
``not on the USML'' to 0A606.x and .y because, absent such a statement, 
unwary readers might conclude that parts and components not elsewhere 
in paragraphs .x or .y are EAR99 when they might in fact be listed on 
the ITAR. Another commenter noted that exclusions in some of the items 
listed in paragraph .y might lead readers to conclude that the excluded 
item is EAR99. This commenter also recommended language making clear 
that items in paragraph .y are not those that are not listed on the 
ITAR.

Response

    BIS agrees and has included the phrase ``not elsewhere specified on 
the USML or CCL'' in both paragraphs .x and .y.

Comment 3

    Two commenters recommended listing the ECCN paragraphs to which a 
control applies (or does not apply) in the ``Control(s)'' column within 
an ECCN rather than in the ``Country Chart'' column.

Response

    The structure that these commenters recommended is already used 
throughout the CCL. BIS has used it for this proposed rule and expects 
to use for other proposed rules relating to control of items that the 
President determines no longer warrant control on the United States 
Munitions List.

Comment 4

    One commenter noted that a number of parts and components currently 
controlled by 9A018 would, under the proposed text of ECCN 0A606 and 
the proposed definition of ``specially designed,'' move to new ECCN 
0A606.x, which would make them ineligible for License Exception LVS 
because proposed ECCN 0A606 allows that license exception for 0A606.a, 
.b and .c only. This commenter also stated that the new definition of 
specially designed would require it to obtain licenses for exports to 
Country Group B countries.

Response

    BIS acknowledges that this is an unintentional consequence of ECCN 
0A606 and has revised this ECCN to make License Exception LVS, which 
allows limited value shipments to Country Group B, available for all 
commodities classified under proposed ECCN 0A606 including those 
currently found in ECCN 9A018. BIS notes that License Exception GBS, 
which authorizes shipments to Country Group B without value limits, 
currently is not available for commodities classified under ECCN 9A018. 
Thus the movement of items from ECCN 9A018 to 0A606 does not affect 
eligibility for exports under License Exception GBS.

Comment 5

    One commenter recommended that regional stability controls not 
apply to ECCN 0A606.a. The commenter noted that the items that would be 
classified under that proposed paragraph currently are classified under 
0A018.a

[[Page 76087]]

and not subject to any regional stability reason for control. The 
commenter stated that it is not aware of any compelling reason for a 
change in policy for these items.

Response

    BIS acknowledges that some commodities currently classified under 
0A018.a (therefore not subject to a regional stability reason for 
control) and other commodities currently classified under 9A018.b 
(therefore subject to the regional stability column 2 reason for 
control) would, under the July 15 rule, be classified under ECCN 0A606 
and therefore would be subject to the regional stability column 1 (RS 
1) reason for control. However, BIS believes that the impact of this 
change on the public would be both reasonable and justified in light of 
the nature of the commodities that would be affected, and is not 
proposing any changes to ECCN 0A606 as proposed in the July 15 rule.
    Currently ECCN 0A018.a and 9A018.b are subject to the national 
security column 1 (NS 1) reason for control. Both the NS1 and RS 1 
reasons for control impose a license requirement for all destinations 
other than Canada. However, licensing policy for the two reasons are 
different. The national security licensing policy is focused on risk of 
diversion to Country Group D:1 destinations. The RS 1 licensing policy 
is focused on preventing enhancement of military capabilities that 
would alter or destabilize a region's stability contrary to the 
interests of the United States. All commodities that would be subject 
to the RS 1 reason for control in proposed ECCN 0A606 are inherently 
military and, therefore, any export of these items can be expected to 
enhance some country's military capability. Because of this inherently 
military nature, BIS believes that application of the more 
comprehensive RS 1 licensing policy in addition to the more traditional 
NS 1 licensing policy is justified.

Comment 6

    One commenter recommended that 0A606.x be limited to specific 
``parts,'' ``components,'' ``accessories and attachments'' that are 
``specially designed'' for a commodity subject to control in this ECCN 
or a defense article in USML Category VII that has military application 
with no civil equivalent. That commenter provided an illustrative list 
of items that, in its opinion, have military application with no civil 
equivalent. That list consisted of:
     Weapon systems (including mounting. targeting. and 
stabilization systems);
     Sensor systems (other than collision avoidance or parking 
sensors systems); and
     Communication systems (other than communication systems 
designed to work with civil communication systems).
    This commenter also recommended that paragraph .y be made into an 
illustrative list of items that have little or no military significance 
or no civil equivalent and that the list in paragraph .y should include 
only items with military significance. Items with no military 
significance should be EAR99.

Response

    The purpose of the controls in a .y paragraph is to create a 
specific, clear, and exclusive list of parts and components that are so 
militarily insignificant that they do not warrant NS1 or RS1 controls, 
even if those parts or components are ``specially designed'' for a 
defense article on the USML or for an item in another paragraph of the 
ECCN that includes that .y paragraph. Turning such a list into an 
illustrative list would create significant doubts among exporters and 
government officials regarding precisely which items were subject to 
its controls. Thus, BIS did not accept this recommendation.

Comment 7

    One commenter recommended that paragraph .x be either a positive 
list of parts and components that are militarily significant or a list 
of the characteristics that make a part militarily significant.

Response

    As described in the State Department's proposed rule amending USML 
Category VII (which is being published simultaneously with this 
proposed rule), paragraph (g) for Category VII, which has historically 
contained a catch-all control for all parts, components, accessories, 
or attachments ``specifically designed or modified'' in any way for a 
defense article in Category VII, would be replaced by a positive list 
of parts, components, accessories, and attachments that would be 
controlled by the proposed revised paragraph VII(g). Thus, this 
proposed amendment is consistent with the Administration's goal of 
creating, to the extent possible, positive lists of controlled items--
i.e., controlling items without using broad, design-intent based catch-
all controls over generic types of items such as ``parts'' and 
``components.'' However, another Administration objective is to make 
sure that items ``specially designed'' for defense articles that are 
now USML controlled items but that would not be USML controlled items 
after any proposed jurisdictional changes not fall out of export 
controls completely. This is why the proposed .x controls in each of 
the new 600 series ECCNs control all parts, components, accessories, 
and attachments ``specially designed'' for a defense article in the 
corresponding USML category or that ECCN. Thus, BIS rejected this 
recommendation.

Comment 8

    Three commenters proposed function tests for identifying items to 
be included in 0A606 paragraph .y as follows:
    The same commenter in Comment 7 recommended that if paragraph .x 
cannot to be made into a positive list, certain items should be added 
to paragraph .y. These items are common (in function) to items widely 
used in civilian vehicles. They include gauges such as speedometers; 
instrument panels/clusters; vehicle/engine sensors; vehicle engine 
monitoring sensors and displays such as check engine lights and their 
associated sensors; electronic braking systems; multiplexing systems to 
limit vehicle wiring; tire pressure monitoring systems; and data 
relating to tires (not including run-flats). Although these items might 
have to be modified for a particular military vehicle, such 
modifications typically relate fit and are similar to the types of 
modifications that are made for civilian vehicles.
    This commenter also stated that the proposed rule did not set forth 
any criteria by which BIS selected items for paragraph .y and the 
selection was arbitrary. The commenter noted five possible 
characteristics that the BIS proposed 0A606.y items appeared to have in 
common. Those characteristics are: (1) The items are widely used in 
civilian and military vehicles alike; (2) without these products, many 
military and civilian vehicles could not function at all; (3) they do 
not include offensive weaponry, armor, threat detection systems, or 
military command, control, and communications systems; (4) they do not 
include items that control or monitor offensive weaponry, armor, threat 
detection systems, or military command control and communications 
systems; and (5) they are available from foreign sources in many 
locations around the world. The commenter stated that it thinks such 
would be good criteria for limiting the reason for control to 
antiterrorism.
    This commenter also suggested that BIS's selection of items for 
paragraph .y appears to equate complexity and the age of a technology 
with military significance. The commenter pointed out that no 
electronic parts are in

[[Page 76088]]

paragraph .y. This commenter also noted that multilateral regimes do 
not require that the United States control non-significant parts and 
the end-use and end-user license requirements provide adequate control 
for parts that have no military significance.
    One commenter asked why 0A606.y did not include exhaust pipes. This 
commenter stated that exhaust pipes consist mainly of metal tubing that 
is bent to fit a particular model of vehicle. As such, they appear to 
be classified under 0A606.x. However, exhaust pipes serve the function 
of keeping poisonous gases away from the passenger compartment on both 
civilian and military vehicles.
    One commenter recommended that wheels be added to 0A606.y, stating 
that wheels have no more military significance than bearings, axles and 
blackout lights, all of which were in 0A606.y of the proposed rule.

Response

    These commenters are, in effect, proposing a function test for 
inclusion in paragraph 0A606.y, i.e., items that differ only in form or 
fit from items that perform a function that is common to both military 
and civilian vehicles but that must be adapted in form or fit to a 
military vehicle should be controlled at no more than the antiterrorism 
reason for control. BIS believes that this recommendation is relevant 
to all ECCNs that would become part of this phase of the Export Control 
Reform Initiative. BIS will continue to review the concept underlying 
this recommendation and encourages further comment on appropriate 
criteria for determining which items classified under 600 series ECCNs 
should be limited to the AT reason for control. BIS will also continue 
to review the specific items proposed for inclusion in 0A606.y by these 
commenters. BIS also notes that, at least in some instances, exhaust 
systems for military vehicles perform additional functions than those 
typically performed by civilian vehicle exhaust systems. Some military 
exhaust systems are designed and built to facilitate deep water fording 
or to reduce emission of thermal radiation, thereby making the vehicle 
less detectable by opposing forces. Thus, exhaust systems are not per 
se items that, even if specially designed for a military application 
would have little or no military significance.

Comment 9

    One commenter stated that bearings should be EAR99 rather than 
0A606.y. This same commenter also stated that gears have about the same 
level of military significance as bearings and that gears should be in 
0A606.y

Response

    Bearings that are not otherwise identified in the CCL, such as in 
ECCN 2A001, and that are not ``specially designed'' for a military 
vehicle controlled on the USML or CCL would be EAR99 bearings. The fact 
that there are significant controls on some types of bearings in the 
CCL indicates that bearings are not per se the types of items that 
would have little or no military significance even if specially 
designed for a military end item. With respect to ``gears,'' BIS 
proposed excluding from controls in its definition of ``specially 
designed'' single unassembled parts that are commonly used in civil 
applications. As indicated above, BIS is reviewing the public comments 
on this aspect of the proposed definition and will address this point 
in a second proposed rule pertaining to the definition of specially 
designed.

Comment 10

    One commenter questioned why blackout lights were included in 
proposed ECCN 0A606.y, which applies to items of little or no military 
significance and also in proposed Interpretation 8, which, among other 
things, identifies features that give a vehicle military 
characteristics.

Response

    This proposed rule would amend proposed 0A606.y to remove blackout 
lights and would remove Interpretation 8 in its entirety. Controls on 
blackout lights are currently the subject of deliberations by the 
Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual 
Use Goods and Technologies. Changing controls on blackout lights at 
this time would be premature. Therefore this proposed rule would not 
include blackout lights in paragraph .y of ECCN 0A606. Blackout lights 
that are specially designed parts, components, accessories or 
attachments for a commodity enumerated in ECCN 0A606 (other than 
0A606.b) or a defense article enumerated in USML Category VII 
classified under ECCN 0A606.x unless specified elsewhere on the CCL or 
the USML.

Comment 11

    Some commenters recommended that a paragraph .y (or a note) be 
included in ECCNs 0B606, 0C606, 0D606 and 0E606 to cover test, 
inspection and production equipment; materials; software; and 
technology that applies to commodities in 0A606.y

Response

    BIS agrees with this comment. This proposed rule would apply this 
limitation to proposed ECCNs 0B606, 0C606, 0D606 and 0E606.

Comment 12

    Two commenters noted that software for the development, production 
or use of 0A606.y commodity item should be controlled at the AT level.

Response

    BIS agrees with this comment and proposes to apply AT controls for 
development, production, operation or maintenance software.

Comment 13

    One commenter recommended that to promote the adaption of 
commercial products for use in U.S. military vehicles, the Department 
of Commerce should limit the controls on form, fit and function data 
that is necessary to provide military insignificant items for military 
vehicles to the antiterrorism reason for control only unless that 
information relates to certain sensitive items. Specifically this 
commenter recommended adding a note to ECCN 0A606 providing that: ``The 
form, fit, and function information necessary to design, modify, adapt, 
and configure parts and components listed in ECCN 0A606.y as having 
little or no military significance is controlled only for AT reasons. 
To the extent the form, fit, and function information relates to 
vehicle weapons; armor; threat detection systems; or military command, 
control, and communications systems, that information is controlled to 
the extent and in the same manner as `technology' or `technical data' 
concerning such item is controlled by the EAR or ITAR, respectively.''

Response

    This comment, although directed at 0A606, applies to all the 600 
series ECCNs that would be created in the Export Control Reform 
Initiative. BIS is not making the recommended changes at this time but 
will continue to consider the recommendation and may propose changes, 
if warranted. BIS encourages additional comments on this issue.

Specific Changes Proposed by This Rule

Removal of Interpretation 8

    This rule would remove Sec.  770.2(h) Interpretation 8: Ground 
vehicles. BIS believes that the text that this rule proposes for ECCN 
0A606 when read with the proposed State Department revisions to 
Category VII of the USML

[[Page 76089]]

are sufficiently precise to make Interpretation 8 unnecessary.

Changes to Proposed ECCNs 0A606, 0B606, 0C606, 0D606 and 0E606

    Following the pattern announced in the July 15 proposed rule, each 
of the five ECCNs noted above would contain a new paragraph designated 
``.y.99'' to cover items that would otherwise fall within the scope of 
one of the ECCNs because, for example, they were ``specially designed'' 
for a military use, but which (i) Had been previously determined by the 
Department of State to be subject to the EAR and (ii) were not listed 
on the CCL. Items in these .y.99 paragraphs would be subject to 
antiterrorism controls.
    Again, following the pattern announced in the aircraft proposed 
rule, the United Nations reason for control would be removed from the 
``License Requirements'' section of each of the five ECCNs listed 
above. The policy of denying applications for licenses to export or 
reexport 600 series items to destinations that are subject to a United 
Nations arms embargo would be implemented in connection with the 
national security reason for control (proposed by the July 15 proposed 
rule) and with the regional stability reason for control (proposed by 
the aircraft proposed rule). Because the EAR as proposed relies on the 
national security and regional stability reasons for control to 
implement United Nations arms embargoes with respect to 600 series 
items on the CCL, a reference to the United Nations in these ECCNs has 
no legal effect and is likely to engender public confusion by 
suggesting the existence of a separate United Nations arms embargo 
licensing requirements and licensing policy section in the EAR. Such a 
section does not exist.
    The references to other 600 series items in the same CCL category 
and product group would be removed from the ``Related Controls'' 
paragraphs of each of the five ECCNs noted above to conform to the 
practice prevailing throughout the CCL. Using the five product groups 
to describe items that differ in function but that are related to other 
items in the same CCL category has been an organizing principle of the 
EAR since at least 1966. Related Controls paragraphs alert readers to 
items that are similar to the items in a given ECCN but that are 
subject to the export control jurisdiction of another agency or appear 
in a different ECCN.
    The words under the ``Controls'' and ``Country Chart'' columns in 
the ``Reasons for Control'' paragraph of each ECCN would be revised to 
conform to the pattern prevailing throughout the CCL wherein the ECCN 
paragraphs to which a control apply are listed the ``Controls'' column 
rather than in the ``Country Chart'' column as was the case in the July 
15 proposed rule. This change is stylistic only, and would not affect 
any license requirements.

Changes to Proposed ECCN 0A606

    This rule proposes a new version of ECCN 0A606 that differs in a 
number of respects from the proposed ECCN 0A606 in the July 15 proposed 
rule. Those differences and the reasons therefor are as follows.
    The heading would be revised from ``Ground Vehicles, `Parts' and 
`Components' as follows'' to ``Ground vehicles and related commodities, 
as follows (See List of Items Controlled)'' to reflect the fact that 
some of the items listed in the entry are accessories, attachments, 
forgings, castings and other unfinished products that are not, as 
defined, ``parts'' or ``components'' of the ground vehicles that would 
be classified under proposed ECCN 0A606.
    This proposed rule would add a new sentence to the STA paragraph in 
the License Exception section to explicitly state that items in 0A606.x 
are not subject to the requirement for a determination as described in 
Sec.  740.20(g) before being exported or reexported under License 
Exception STA. Such determinations are not needed because item in 
paragraph .x are, by definition, parts and components and are not ``end 
items.'' BIS regards this proposal as an additional statement of a 
principle set forth in the July 15 proposed rule and is not a 
substantive change.
    The EAR Country Chart Column designators in the License 
Requirements section would apply national security (NS column 2), 
regional stability (RS column 2) to 0A606.b, certain unarmed all-wheel 
drive off-road vehicles derived from civilian vehicles that provide 
ballistic protection to level III (National Institute of Justice 
standard 0108.01, September 1985) or better and parts and components 
that provide such protection. As proposed in the July 15 proposed rule, 
all other paragraphs of this ECCN, except paragraph .y, would be 
subject to the NS column 1 and RS column 1 reason for control, and the 
entire ECCN would be subject to the anti-terrorism reason for control. 
Applying NS column 2 and RS column 2 reasons for control to the armored 
off-road vehicles in 0A606.b would allow armored SUVs that are used for 
personal protection to be exported to most NATO member countries along 
with Australia, Japan and New Zealand without a license. Any risk that 
such vehicles exported to such destinations would be employed in a 
military use inimical to the United States or its allies is minimal.
    As revised, proposed new ECCN 0A606 would include deep water 
fording kits ``specially designed'' for ground vehicles controlled by 
0A606.a or USML Category VII, and self-launching bridge components not 
enumerated in USML Category VII(g) ``specially designed'' for 
deployment by ground vehicles enumerated in USML Category VII or 0A606. 
Such items are specifically identified in WAML Category 6. Because a 
goal of the effort of the reform effort is to more clearly align the 
U.S. Government's controls with the controls of the multilateral 
regimes, these controls are specifically listed in the new 0A606.
    This proposed rule would add a note to paragraph .x providing that 
forgings, castings and certain other unfinished products that have 
reached a stage in manufacture where they are clearly identifiable as 
commodities controlled by 0A606.x are controlled by that paragraph. 
Adding this note serves to better align the controls over 600 series 
military articles with the controls in the WAML, which controls in its 
Category 16 such forgings and castings. This proposed note also would 
better align the requirements of ECCN 0A606 with the controls on 
forgings and castings now in the ITAR (22 CFR 121.10). BIS encourages 
comments on whether the proposed controls on forgings and castings in 
the new 0A606.x are clear.
    Also, the proposed new ECCN would not include in paragraph .y 
blackout lights, which were included in paragraph .y of the July 15 
proposed rule because the subject of appropriate controls over blackout 
lights is a topic under consideration by the Wassenaar Arrangements on 
Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and 
Technologies. Blackout lights that are specially designed parts, 
components, accessories or attachments for a commodity enumerated in 
ECCN 0A606 (other than 0A606.b) or a defense article enumerated in USML 
Category VII classified under ECCN 0A606.x unless specified elsewhere 
on the CCL or the USML.
    Finally, the proposed new ECCN 0A606 would not include military 
vehicle gas turbine engines because controls on gas turbine engines and 
related items for military aircraft, ships, and vehicles are addressed 
in another proposed rule which, would create a proposed ECCN 9A619. 
Although this numbering deviates slightly from the WAML numbering 
approach, BIS believes that it would be more efficient

[[Page 76090]]

to list all 600 series controls for gas turbine engines and related 
items in one ECCN. The anticipated new ECCN will correspond to a new 
USML Category XIX that the State Department would propose creating to 
control USML-controlled gas turbine engines and related articles.

Changes to Proposed ECCN 0B606

    This rule proposes a new version of ECCN 0B606 that differs in a 
number of respects from the ECCN 0B606 in the July 15 proposed rule.
    The heading would be changed from ``Test, inspection, and 
production `equipment' and related commodities `specially designed' for 
the `development' or `production' of commodities enumerated in ECCN 
0A606'' to ``Test, inspection, and production `equipment' and related 
commodities `specially designed' for the `development' or `production' 
of commodities enumerated in ECCN 0A606 or USML Category VII (See List 
of Items Controlled).'' This text more accurately reflects the scope of 
this proposed ECCN.
    The four specific commodities that were listed in paragraphs .a, .b 
.c and .d in the July 15 proposed rule: (i) Armor plate drilling 
machines, other than radial drilling machines, (ii) armor plate planing 
machines, (iii) armor plate quenching presses; and (iv) tank turret 
bearing grinding machines are included as a note to paragraph .a in 
this proposed rule. Paragraph .a, as a whole, would apply more broadly 
in this proposed rule to test, inspection, and production ``equipment'' 
``specially designed'' for the ``production'' or ``development'' of 
commodities enumerated in ECCN 0A606 (except for 0A606.y) or in USML 
Category VII, and ``parts,'' ``components,'' ``accessories and 
attachments'' ``specially designed'' therefor. Paragraph .b would apply 
more broadly in this proposed rule to environmental test facilities 
``specially designed'' for the certification, qualification, or testing 
of commodities enumerated in ECCN 0A606 (except for 0A606.b or 0A606.y) 
or in USML Category VII, and ``equipment'' ``specially designed'' 
therefor. This specifically identifies as controlled in U.S. export 
control law such items, which are identified in WAML Category 18.
    Paragraphs .c through .x would be reserved for future use.

Changes to Proposed ECCN 0C606

    The ``Items'' paragraph in the ``List of Items Controlled'' section 
would be in the form of a list rather than just a reference to the ECCN 
heading as was the case in the July 15 proposed rule. Paragraph .a of 
that list would enumerate materials ``specially designed'' for the 
``development'' or ``production'' of commodities enumerated in ECCN 
0A606 (other than 0A606.b or 0A606.y) or USML Category VII, not 
elsewhere specified in the USML or the CCL. Two notes following 
paragraph .a would make clear that materials enumerated elsewhere on 
the CCL are subject to the controls of the CCL in which they are 
enumerated and materials specially designed for vehicles enumerated in 
ECCN 0A606 or in USML Category VII are subject to ECCN 0C606 unless 
such materials are identified in USML Category VII(g).

Changes to Proposed ECCN 0D606

    The term ``use'' would be replaced with the term ``operation and 
maintenance'' because the latter more accurately describes the software 
functions of concern.

Changes to Proposed ECCN 0E606

    The term ``use'' would be replaced with the term ``operation, 
installation, maintenance, repair or overhaul'' because the latter is a 
more accurate description of the technology of concern.

 Request for Comments

    All comments must be in writing and submitted via one or more of 
the methods listed under the ADDRESSES caption to this notice. All 
comments (including any personal identifiable information) will be 
available for public inspection and copying. Anyone wishing to comment 
anonymously may do so by submitting their comment via regulations.gov 
and leaving the fields for information that would identify the 
commenter for identifying information blank.

Relationship to the July 15 Proposed Rule and the Aircraft Proposed 
Rule

    As referenced above, the purpose of the July 15 proposed rule was 
to set up the framework to support the transfer of items from the USML 
to the CCL. To facilitate that goal, the July 15 proposed rule 
contained definitions and concepts that were meant to be applied across 
Categories. However, as BIS undertakes rulemakings to move specific 
categories of items from the USML to the CCL, there may be unforeseen 
issues or complications that may require BIS to reexamine those 
definitions and concepts. The comment period for the July 15 proposed 
rule closed on September 13, 2011. In the aircraft proposed rule, BIS 
proposed several changes to those definitions and concepts. The comment 
period for the aircraft proposed rule will close on December 22, 2011.
    To the extent that this rule's proposals affect any provision in 
either of those proposed rules or any provision in either of those 
proposed rules affect this proposed rule, BIS will consider comments on 
those provisions so long as they are in the context of the changes 
proposed in this rule.
    BIS believes that the following aspects of the July 15 proposed 
rule and the aircraft proposed rule are among those that could affect 
this proposed rule:
     De minimis provisions in Sec.  734.4;
     Definitions of terms in Sec.  772.1;
     Restrictions on use of license exceptions in Sec. Sec.  
740.2, 740.10, 740.11, and 740.20 (including restrictions proposed by 
the November 7, 2011, proposed rule that would apply to items outside 
the scope of that rule);
     Change to national security licensing policy in Sec.  
742.4;
     Requirement to request authorization to use License 
Exception STA for end items in 600 series ECCNs and procedures for 
submitting such requests in Sec. Sec.  740.2, 740.20, 748.8 and Supp. 
No. 2 to part 748;
     Licensing policy in Sec.  742.4(b)(1)(ii);
     Addition of 600 series items to Supplement No. 2 to Part 
744--List of Items Subject to the Military End-Use Requirement of Sec.  
744.21; and
     Addition of U.S. arms embargo policy regarding 600 series 
items set forth in Sec.  742.4(b)(1)(ii) (national security) of the 
July 15 proposed rule to Sec.  742.6(b)(1) (regional stability) of this 
proposed rule.
    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 12, 
2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011), has continued the Export 
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the 
Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to 
Executive Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

Regulatory Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity).

[[Page 76091]]

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 is 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 et seq.) (PRA), 
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. This proposed rule would affect two approved 
collections: Simplified Network Application Processing + System 
(control number 0694-0088), which includes, among other things, license 
applications, and License Exceptions and Exclusions (0694-0137).
    As stated in the proposed rule published at 76 FR 41958 (July 15, 
2011), BIS believes that the combined effect of all rules to be 
published adding items to EAR that are being removed from the ITAR as 
part of the administration's Export Control Reform Initiative will 
increase the number of license applications to be submitted to BIS by 
approximately 16,000 annually, resulting in an increase in burden hours 
of 5,067 (16,000 transactions at 17 minutes each) under control number 
0694-0088.
    Some items formerly on the USML will become eligible for License 
Exception STA under this rule. Other such items may become eligible for 
License Exception STA upon approval of a request submitted in 
conjunction with a license application. As stated in the July 15 
proposed rule, BIS believes that the increased use of License Exception 
STA resulting from combined effect of all rules to be published adding 
items to EAR that are being removed from the ITAR as part of the 
administration's Export Control Reform Initiative will increase the 
burden associated with control number 0694-0137 by about 23,858 hours 
(20,450 transactions @1 hour and 10 minutes each).
    BIS expects that this increase in burden would be more than offset 
by a reduction in burden hours associated with approved collections 
related to the ITAR. This proposed rule addresses controls on military 
vehicles and related parts, components, production equipment, 
materials, software, and technology. The largest impact of the proposed 
rule would be with respect to exporters of parts and components 
because, under the proposed rule, most U.S. and foreign military 
vehicles currently in service would continue to be subject to the ITAR. 
Because, with few exceptions, the ITAR allows exemptions from license 
requirements only for exports to Canada, most exports to integrators 
for U.S. government equipment and most exports of routine maintenance 
parts and components for our NATO and other close allies require State 
Department authorization. In addition, the exports necessary to produce 
parts and components for defense articles in the inventories of the 
United States and its NATO and other close allies require State 
Department authorizations. Under the EAR, as proposed, a small number 
of low level parts would not require a license to most destinations. 
Most other parts, components, accessories, and attachments would become 
eligible for export to NATO and other close allies under License 
Exception STA. Use of License Exception STA imposes a paperwork and 
compliance burden because, for example, exporters must furnish 
information about the item being exported to the consignee and obtain 
from the consignee and acknowledgement and commitment to comply with 
the EAR. It is, however, the Administration's understanding that 
complying with the burdens of STA is likely to be less burdensome than 
applying for licenses. For example, under License Exception STA, a 
single consignee statement can apply to an unlimited number of 
products, need not have an expiration date, and need not be submitted 
to the government in advance for approval. Suppliers with regular 
customers can tailor a single statement and assurance to match their 
business relationship rather than applying repeatedly for licenses with 
every purchase order to supply allied and, in some cases, U.S. forces 
with routine replacement parts and components.
    Even in situations in which a license would be required under the 
EAR, the burden is likely to be reduced compared to the license 
requirement of the ITAR. In particular, license applications for 
exports of technology controlled by ECCN 0E606 are likely to be less 
complex and burdensome than the authorizations required to export ITAR-
controlled technology, i.e., Manufacturing License Agreements and 
Technical Assistance Agreements.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications 
as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.
    4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. 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 proposed rule 
published on July 15, 2011, will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule re-proposes with certain changes, 5 ECCNs that 
were proposed in the July 15, 2011 rule. The changes proposed in this 
rule do not impact the original certification. Consequently, BIS has 
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis. A summary of the 
factual basis for the certification, which also takes into 
consideration the changes to the five proposed ECCNs in this rule, is 
provided below.

Number of Small Entities

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) does not collect data on 
the size of entities that apply for and are issued export licenses. 
Although BIS is unable to estimate the exact number of small entities 
that would be affected by this rule, it acknowledges that this rule 
would affect some unknown number.

Economic Impact

    This proposed rule is part of the Administration's Export Control 
Reform Initiative. Under that initiative, the United States Munitions 
List (22 CFR part 121) (USML) would be revised to be a ``positive'' 
list, i.e., a list that does not use generic, catch-all controls on any 
part, component, accessory, attachment, or end item that was in any way 
specifically modified for a defense article, regardless of the 
article's military or intelligence significance or non-military 
applications. At the same time, articles that are determined to no 
longer warrant control on the USML would become controlled on the

[[Page 76092]]

Commerce Control List (CCL). Such items, along with certain military 
items that currently are on the CCL, will be identified in specific 
Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) known as the ``600 
series'' ECCNs. In addition, some items currently on the Commerce 
Control List would move from existing ECCNs to the new 600 series 
ECCNs. In practice, the greatest impact of this rule on small entities 
would likely be reduced administrative costs and reduced delay for 
exports of items that are now on the USML but would become subject to 
the EAR. This rule focuses on Category VII articles, which are tanks 
and military vehicles and related parts, components, production 
equipment, software, and technology. Most operational tanks and 
military vehicles currently in active inventory would remain on the 
USML. However, parts and components, which are more likely to be 
produced by small businesses than are complete vehicles, would in many 
cases become subject to the EAR. In addition, officials of the 
Department of State have informed BIS that license applications for 
such parts and components are a high percentage of the license 
applications for USML articles review by that department.
    Changing the jurisdictional status of Category VII items would 
reduce the burden on small entities (and other entities as well) 
through elimination of some license requirements, greater availability 
of license exceptions, simpler license application procedures, and 
reduced (or eliminated) registration fees.
    In addition, parts and components controlled under the ITAR remain 
under ITAR control when incorporated into foreign-made items, 
regardless of the significance or insignificance of the item, 
discouraging foreign buyers from incorporating such U.S. content. The 
availability of de minimis treatment under the EAR may reduce the 
incentive for foreign manufacturers to avoid purchasing U.S.-origin 
parts and components.
    Fourteen types of parts and components, identified in ECCN 0A606.y, 
would be designated immediately as parts and components that, even if 
specially designed for a military use, have little or no military 
significance. These parts and components, which under the ITAR require 
a license to nearly all destinations, would, under the EAR, require a 
license to only five destinations and, if destined for a military end 
use, the People's Republic of China.
    Many exports and reexports of Category VII articles that would be 
placed on the CCL by this rule, particularly parts and components, 
would become eligible for license exceptions that apply to shipments to 
United States Government agencies, shipments valued at less than 
$1,500, parts and components being exported for use as replacement 
parts, temporary exports, and License Exception Strategic Trade 
Authorization (STA), reducing the number of licenses that exporters of 
these items would need. License Exceptions under the EAR would allow 
suppliers to send routine replacement parts and low level parts to NATO 
and other close allies and export control regime partners for use by 
those governments and for use by contractors building equipment for 
those governments or for the United States government without having to 
obtain export licenses. Under License Exception STA, the exporter would 
need to furnish information about the item being exported to the 
consignee and obtain a statement from the consignee that, among other 
things, would commit the consignee to comply with the EAR and other 
applicable U.S. laws. Because such statements and obligations can apply 
to an unlimited number of transactions and have no expiration date, 
they would impose a net reduction in burden on transactions that the 
government routinely approves through the license application process 
that the License Exception STA statements would replace.
    Even for exports and reexports in which a license would be 
required, the process would be simpler and less costly under the EAR. 
When a USML Category VII article is moved to the CCL, the number of 
destinations for which a license is required would remain unchanged. 
However, the burden on the license applicant would decrease because the 
licensing procedure for CCL items is simpler and more flexible that the 
license procedure for USML articles.
    Under the USML licensing procedure, an applicant must include a 
purchase order or contract with its application. There is no such 
requirement under the CCL licensing procedure. This difference gives 
the CCL applicant at least two advantages. First, the applicant has a 
way of determining whether the U.S. government will authorize the 
transaction before it enters into potentially lengthy, complex and 
expensive sales presentations or contract negotiations. Under the USML 
procedure, the applicant will need to caveat all sales presentations 
with a reference to the need for government approval and is more likely 
to have to engage in substantial effort and expense only to find that 
the government will reject the application. Second, a CCL license 
applicant need not limit its application to the quantity or value of 
one purchase order or contract. It may apply for a license to cover all 
of its expected exports or reexports to a particular consignee over the 
life of a license (normally two years, but may be longer if 
circumstances warrant a longer period), reducing the total number of 
licenses for which the applicant must apply.
    In addition, many applicants exporting or reexporting items that 
this rule would transfer from the USML to the CCL would realize cost 
savings through the elimination of some or all registration fees 
currently assessed under the USML's licensing procedure. Currently, 
USML applicants must pay to use the USML licensing procedure even if 
they never actually are authorized to export. Registration fees for 
manufacturers and exporters of articles on the USML start at $2,500 per 
year, increase to $2,750 for organizations applying for one to ten 
licenses per year and further increases to $2,750 plus $250 per license 
application (subject to a maximum of three percent of total application 
value) for those who need to apply for more than ten licenses per year. 
There are no registration or application processing fees for 
applications to export items listed on the CCL. Once the Category VII 
items that are the subject to this rulemaking are moved from the USML 
to the CCL, entities currently applying for licenses from the 
Department of State would find their registration fees reduced if the 
number of USML licenses those entities need declines. If an entity's 
entire product line is moved to the CCL, then its ITAR registration and 
registration fee requirement would be eliminated.
    De minimis treatment under the EAR would become available for all 
items that this rule would transfer from the USML to the CCL. Items 
subject to the ITAR remain subject to the ITAR when they are 
incorporated abroad into a foreign-made product regardless of the 
percentage of U.S. content in that foreign made product. Foreign-made 
products that incorporate items that this rule would move to the CCL 
would be subject to the EAR only if their total controlled U.S.-origin 
content exceeded 10 percent. Because including small amounts of U.S.-
origin content would not subject foreign-made products to the EAR, 
foreign manufacturers would have less incentive to avoid such U.S.-
origin parts and components, a development that potentially would mean 
greater sales for U.S. suppliers, including small entities.

[[Page 76093]]

    For items currently on the CCL that would be moved from existing 
ECCNs to the new 600 series, license exception availability would be 
narrowed somewhat and the applicable de minimis threshold for foreign-
made products containing those items would in some cases be reduced 
from 25 percent to 10 percent. However, BIS believes that increased 
burden imposed by those actions will be offset substantially by the 
reduction in burden attributable to the moving of items from the USML 
to CCL and the compliance benefits associated with the consolidation of 
all WAML items subject to the EAR in one series of ECCNs.

Conclusion

    BIS is unable to determine the precise number of small entities 
that would be affected by this rule. Based on the facts and conclusions 
set forth above, BIS believes that any burdens imposed by this rule 
would be offset by the a reduction in the number of items that would 
require a license, increased opportunities for use of license 
exceptions for exports to certain countries, simpler export license 
applications, reduced or eliminated registration fees, and application 
of a de minimis threshold for foreign-made items incorporating U.S.-
origin parts and components, which would reduce the incentive for 
foreign buyers to design out or avoid U.S.-origin content. For these 
reasons, the Chief Counsel for Regulations of the Department of 
Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration that this rule, if adopted in final form, would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 742

    Exports, Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 770

    Exports.

15 CFR Part 774

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Export Administration 
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are proposed to be amended as 
follows:

15 CFR PART 742--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation paragraph for part 742 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 
U.S.C. 7210; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058, 43 
FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 
1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 
950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination 
2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of August 
12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011); Notice of November 9, 2011, 
76 FR 70319 (November 10, 2011).

    2. Section 742.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(a)(4)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  742.6  Regional stability.

    (a) * * *
    (1) RS Column 1 License Requirements in General. As indicated in 
the CCL and in RS column 1 of the Commerce Country Chart (see 
Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR), a license is required to all 
destinations, except Canada, for items described on the CCL under ECCNs 
0A521; 0A606 (except 0A606.b and .y); 0B521; 0B606 (except 0B606.y); 
0C521; 0C606 (except 0C606.y); 0D521; 0D606 (except 0D606.y); 0E521; 
0E606 (except 0E606.y); 6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3, .c, or .e; 6A003.b.3, and 
b.4.a; 6A008.j.1; 6A998.b; 6D001 (only ``software'' for the 
``development'' or ``production'' of items in 6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3, .c; 
6A003.b.3 and .b.4; or 6A008.j.1); 6D002 (only ``software'' for the 
``use'' of items in 6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3, .c; 6A003.b.3 and .b.4; or 
6A008.j.1); 6D003.c; 6D991 (only ``software'' for the ``development,'' 
``production,'' or ``use'' of equipment classified under 6A002.e or 
6A998.b); 6E001 (only ``technology'' for ``development'' of items in 
6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3 (except 6A002.a.3.d.2.a and 6A002.a.3.e for lead 
selenide focal plane arrays), and .c or .e, 6A003.b.3 and b.4, or 
6A008.j.1); 6E002 (only ``technology'' for ``production'' of items in 
6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3, .c, or .e, 6A003.b.3 or b.4, or 6A008.j.1); 6E991 
(only ``technology'' for the ``development,'' ``production,'' or 
``use'' of equipment classified under 6A998.b); 6D994; 7A994 (only 
QRS11-00100-100/101 and QRS11-0050-443/569 Micromachined Angular Rate 
Sensors); 7D001 (only ``software'' for ``development'' or 
``production'' of items in 7A001, 7A002, or 7A003); 7E001 (only 
``technology'' for the ``development'' of inertial navigation systems, 
inertial equipment, and specially designed components therefor for 
civil aircraft); 7E002 (only ``technology'' for the ``production'' of 
inertial navigation systems, inertial equipment, and specially designed 
components therefor for civil aircraft); 7E101 (only ``technology'' for 
the ``use'' of inertial navigation systems, inertial equipment, and 
specially designed components for civil aircraft); 9A610 (except 
9A610.y); 9A619; 9B610 (except 9B610.y); 9B619 (except 9B619.y); 9C610 
(except 9C610.y); 9C619 (except 9C619,y); 9D610 (except software for 
the development,'' ``production,'' operation or maintenance of 
commodities controlled by 9A610.y, 9B610.y, or 9C610.y); 9D619 (except 
software for the ``development,'' ``production,'' operation or 
maintenance of commodities controlled by 9A619.y, 9B619.y, or 9C619.y); 
9E610 (except ``technology'' for the ``development,'' ``production'' 
operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or 
refurbishment of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A610.y, 9B610.y, or 
9C610.y) and 9E619 (except ``technology'' for the ``development,'' 
``production,'' operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul 
of refurbishment of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A619.y, 9B619.y, or 
9C619.y).
    * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) License Requirements Applicable to Most RS Column 2 Items. As 
indicated in the CCL and in RS Column 2 of the Commerce Country Chart 
(see Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR), a license is required to 
any destination except Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and countries in 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for items described on 
the CCL under ECCNs 0A918, 0E918, 1A004.d, 1D003 (software to enable 
equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled by 1A004.d), 
1E001 (technology for the development, production, or use of 1A004.d), 
2A983, 2A984, 2D983, 2D984, 2E983, 2E984, 0A606.b, 8A918, and for 
military vehicles and certain commodities (specially designed) used to 
manufacture military equipment, described on the CCL in ECCNs 0A018.c, 
1B018.a, and 2B018.
* * * * *

15 CFR PART 770--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation paragraph for part 770 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 
12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011).


Section 770.2  [Amended]

    4. Section 770.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(h).

PART 774--[AMENDED]

    5. The authority citation paragraph for part 774 continues to read 
as follows:


[[Page 76094]]


    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 
10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et 
seq., 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 
U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 
783; Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011).

    6. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Category 0, add Export Control 
Classification Number 0A606 between Export Control Classification 
Numbers 0A018 and 0A918 to read as follows:

0A606 Ground veh