Effects of Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls, 54623-54625 [2013-21577]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2013 / Notices
from the ‘‘redesigned’’ ASEC. This splitdesign will enable Census Bureau
analysts to create a ‘‘cross-walk’’ when
analyzing the effects of the redesigned
ASEC on income and poverty estimates.
The U.S. Census Bureau continues to
follow the 1999 mandate from Congress
regarding passage of the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or
Title XXI. The mandate increased the
sample size for the CPS, and specifically
the ASEC, to a level achieving estimates
that are more reliable for the number of
individuals participating in this
program at the state level. Since 2000,
the ASEC is conducted in February,
March, and April, rather than only in
March, to achieve the increase in
sample size.
II. Method of Collection
The ASEC information will be
collected by both personal visit and
telephone interviews in conjunction
with the regular February, March and
April CPS interviewing. All interviews
are conducted using computer-assisted
interviewing.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0607–0354.
Form Number: There are no forms.
We conduct all interviewing on
computers.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
78,000.
Estimated Time per Response: 25
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 32,500.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: There
are no costs to the respondents other
than their time to answer the CPS
questions.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Legal Authority: Title 13, United
States Code, Section 182; and Title 29,
United States Code, Sections 1–9.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (A)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(B) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden (including hours
and cost) of the proposed collection of
information; (C) Ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (D)
Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:10 Sep 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: August 29, 2013.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–21538 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[B–81–2013]
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7—
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of
Proposed Production Activity; Puma
Energy Caribe, LLC (Biodiesel
Blending); Bayamon, Puerto Rico
Puma Energy Caribe, LLC (Puma
Energy) submitted a notification of
proposed production activity to the FTZ
Board for its facility in Bayamon, Puerto
Rico within Subzone 7F. The
notification conforming to the
requirements of the regulations of the
FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was
received on August 26, 2013.
Puma Energy already has authority to
conduct certain standard refinery
operations involving crude oil and
petroleum products within Subzone 7F.
The current request would add the
blending of biodiesel to the scope of
authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b),
additional FTZ authority would be
limited to the specific foreign-status
materials and components and specific
finished products described in the
submitted notification (as described
below) and subsequently authorized by
the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures
could exempt Puma Energy from
customs duty payments on the foreign
status component used in export
production. On its domestic sales, Puma
Energy would be able to choose the duty
rates during customs entry procedures
that apply to renewable diesel blends
(duty rate—10.5¢/barrel) for the foreign
status inputs noted below and in the
existing scope of authority. Customs
duties also could possibly be deferred or
reduced on foreign status production
equipment.
The component sourced from abroad
is: Fatty acid methyl ester meeting the
specification of biodiesel (B100) (duty
rate—4.6%).
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54623
addressed to the Board’s Executive
Secretary at the address below. The
closing period for their receipt is
October 15, 2013.
A copy of the notification will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room
21013, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the
‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s
Web site, which is accessible via
www.trade.gov/ftz.
For further information, contact
Elizabeth Whiteman at
Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202)
482–0473.
Dated: August 27, 2013.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–21638 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 130823751–3751–01]
Effects of Foreign Policy-Based Export
Controls
Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
BIS is seeking public
comments on the effect of existing
foreign policy-based export controls in
the Export Administration Regulations.
BIS is requesting public comments to
conduct consultations with U.S.
industries. Section 6 of the Export
Administration Act (EAA) requires BIS
to consult with industry on the effect of
such controls and to report the results
of the consultations to Congress.
Comments from all interested persons
are welcome. All comments will be
made available for public inspection
and copying and included in a report to
be submitted to Congress.
DATES: Comments must be received by
October 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this rule may
be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal
(www.regulations.gov). The
regulations.gov ID for this rule is: BIS–
2013–0019. Comments may also be sent
by email to publiccomments@
bis.doc.gov or on paper to Regulatory
Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce,
14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Room 2099B, Washington, DC
20230. Include the phrase ‘‘FPBEC
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM
05SEN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
54624
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2013 / Notices
Comment’’ in the subject line of the
email message or on the envelope if
submitting comments on paper. All
comments must be in writing (either
submitted to regulations.gov, by email
or on paper). All comments, including
personal identifying information (e.g.,
name, address) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter, will be a matter of
public record and will be available for
public inspection and copying. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracy L. Patts, Foreign Policy Division,
Office of Nonproliferation Controls and
Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry
and Security, telephone 202–482–6389.
The current Annual Foreign Policy
Report to the Congress is available at
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/
about-bis/newsroom/archives/27-aboutbis/502-foreign-policy-reports, and
copies may also be requested by calling
the Office of Nonproliferation Controls
and Treaty Compliance at the number
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Foreign
policy-based controls in the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) are
implemented pursuant to section 6 of
the Export Administration Act of 1979,
as amended, (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–
2420 (2000)) (EAA). The current foreign
policy-based export controls maintained
by the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) are set forth in the EAR (15 CFR
parts 730–774), including in parts 742
(CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User
and End-Use Based Controls) and 746
(Embargoes and Other Special Controls).
These controls apply to a range of
countries, items, activities and persons,
including:
• Entities acting contrary to the
national security or foreign policy
interests of the United States (§ 744.11);
• Certain general purpose
microprocessors for ‘‘military end-uses’’
and ‘‘military end-users’’ (§ 744.17);
• Significant items (SI);
• Hot section technology for the
development, production, or overhaul of
commercial aircraft engines,
components, and systems (§ 742.14);
• Encryption items (§ 742.15);
• Crime control and detection items
(§ 742.7);
• Specially designed implements of
torture (§ 742.11);
• Certain firearms and related items
based on the Organization of American
States Model Regulations for the Control
of the International Movement of
Firearms, their Parts and Components
and Munitions included within the
Inter-American Convention Against the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:10 Sep 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking
in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives,
and Other Related Materials (§ 742.17);
• Regional stability items (§ 742.6);
• Equipment and related technical
data used in the design, development,
production, or use of certain rocket
systems and unmanned air vehicles
(§§ 742.5 and 744.3);
• Chemical precursors and biological
agents, associated equipment, technical
data, and software related to the
production of chemical and biological
agents (§§ 742.2 and 744.4) and various
chemicals included on the list of those
chemicals controlled pursuant to the
Chemical Weapons Convention
(§ 742.18);
• Communication intercepting
devices, software and technology
(§ 742.13);
• Nuclear propulsion (§ 744.5);
• Aircraft and vessels (§ 744.7);
• Restrictions on exports and
reexports to certain persons designated
as proliferators of weapons of mass
destruction (§ 744.8);
• Certain cameras to be used by
military end-users or incorporated into
a military commodity (§ 744.9);
• Countries designated as Supporters
of Acts of International Terrorism
(§§ 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19, 746.2,
746.4, 746.7, and 746.9);
• Certain entities in Russia (§ 744.10);
• Individual terrorists and terrorist
organizations (§§ 744.12, 744.13 and
744.14);
• Certain persons designated by
Executive Order 13315 (‘‘Blocking
Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its
Senior Officials and Their Family
Members’’) (§ 744.18);
• Certain sanctioned entities
(§ 744.20);
• Embargoed countries (Part 746); and
• U.N. arms embargoes (§ 746.1).
In addition, the EAR impose foreign
policy-based export controls on certain
nuclear-related commodities,
technology, end-uses and end-users
(§§ 742.3 and 744.2), in part,
implementing section 309(c) of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978
(42 U.S.C. 2139a).
Under the provisions of section 6 of
the EAA, export controls maintained for
foreign policy purposes require annual
extension. Section 6 of the EAA requires
a report to Congress when foreign
policy-based export controls are
extended. The EAA expired on August
20, 2001. Executive Order 13222 of
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783 (2002)), as amended by Executive
Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR
16129 (March 13, 2013), which has been
extended by successive Presidential
Notices, the most recent being that of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
August 8, 2013 (78 FR 49105 (Aug. 12,
2013)), continues the EAR and, to the
extent permitted by law, the provisions
of the EAA, in effect under the
International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
(2000) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). The
Department of Commerce, as
appropriate, follows the provisions of
section 6 of the EAA by reviewing its
foreign policy-based export controls,
conducting consultations with industry
through public comments on such
controls, and preparing a report to be
submitted to Congress. In January 2013,
the Secretary of Commerce, on the
recommendation of the Secretary of
State, extended for one year all foreign
policy-based export controls then in
effect. BIS is now soliciting public
comment on the effects of extending the
existing foreign policy-based export
controls from January 2014 to January
2015. Among the criteria considered in
determining whether to extend U.S.
foreign policy-based export controls are
the following:
1. The likelihood that such controls
will achieve their intended foreign
policy purposes, in light of other factors,
including the availability from other
countries of the goods, software or
technology proposed for such controls;
2. Whether the foreign policy
objective of such controls can be
achieved through negotiations or other
alternative means;
3. The compatibility of the controls
with the foreign policy objectives of the
United States and with the overall U.S.
policy toward the country subject to the
controls;
4. Whether the reaction of other
countries to the extension of such
controls is not likely to render the
controls ineffective in achieving the
intended foreign policy objective or be
counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy
interests;
5. The comparative benefits to U.S.
foreign policy objectives versus the
effect of the controls on the export
performance of the United States, the
competitive position of the United
States in the international economy, the
international reputation of the United
States as a supplier of goods and
technology; and
6. The ability of the United States to
effectively enforce the controls.
BIS is particularly interested in
receiving comments on the economic
impact of proliferation controls. BIS is
also interested in industry information
relating to the following:
1. Information on the effect of foreign
policy-based export controls on sales of
U.S. products to third countries (i.e.,
those countries not targeted by
E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM
05SEN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2013 / Notices
sanctions), including the views of
foreign purchasers or prospective
customers regarding U.S. foreign policybased export controls.
2. Information on controls maintained
by U.S. trade partners. For example, to
what extent do U.S. trade partners have
similar controls on goods and
technology on a worldwide basis or to
specific destinations?
3. Information on licensing policies or
practices by our foreign trade partners
that are similar to U.S. foreign policy
based export controls, including license
review criteria, use of conditions, and
requirements for pre- and post-shipment
verifications (preferably supported by
examples of approvals, denials and
foreign regulations).
4. Suggestions for bringing foreign
policy-based export controls more into
line with multilateral practice.
5. Comments or suggestions to make
multilateral controls more effective.
6. Information that illustrates the
effect of foreign policy-based export
controls on trade or acquisitions by
intended targets of the controls.
7. Data or other information on the
effect of foreign policy-based export
controls on overall trade at the level of
individual industrial sectors.
8. Suggestions for measuring the effect
of foreign policy-based export controls
on trade.
9. Information on the use of foreign
policy-based export controls on targeted
countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is
also interested in comments relating
generally to the extension or revision of
existing foreign policy-based export
controls.
Parties submitting comments are
asked to be as specific as possible. All
comments received before the close of
the comment period will be considered
by BIS in reviewing the controls and in
developing the report to Congress. All
comments received in response to this
notice will be displayed on BIS’s
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web
site at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ and on
the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at
www.Regulations.gov. All comments
will also be included in a report to
Congress, as required by section 6 of the
EAA, which directs that BIS report to
Congress the results of its consultations
with industry on the effects of foreign
policy-based controls.
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013–21577 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:10 Sep 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
et al.: Notice of Consolidated Decision
on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of
Electron Microscope
This is a decision consolidated
pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).
Related records can be viewed between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC.
Docket Number: 13–016. Applicant:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA 99352. Instrument:
Electron Microscope. Manufacturer:
JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See
notice at 78 FR 34990, June 11, 2013.
Docket Number: 13–018. Applicant:
The Scripps Institute, La Jolla, CA
92037. Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 78
FR 34990, June 11, 2013.
Docket Number: 13–021. Applicant:
University of Massachusetts Amherst,
Amherst, MA 01003. Instrument:
Electron Microscope. Manufacturer:
JEOL Ltd, Japan. Intended Use: See
notice at 78 FR 37206–07, June 20, 2013.
Docket Number: 13–022. Applicant:
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
84132. Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.
Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR
34990–91, June 11, 2013.
Docket Number: 13–024. Applicant:
University of Pennsylvania, Biomedical
Research Building, Philadelphia, PA
19104. Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 78
FR 34990–91, June 11, 2013.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. No instrument of equivalent
scientific value to the foreign
instrument, for such purposes as this
instrument is intended to be used, is
being manufactured in the United States
at the time the instrument was ordered.
Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an
electron microscope and is intended for
research or scientific educational uses
requiring an electron microscope. We
know of no electron microscope, or any
other instrument suited to these
purposes, which was being
manufactured in the United States at the
time of order of each instrument.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54625
Dated: August 27, 2013.
Richard Herring,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement
Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013–21641 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–938]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Partial Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: September 5,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia M. Tran or Raquel Silva, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1503 or (202) 482–
6475, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On May 1, 2013, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on
citric acid and certain citrate salts from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
covering the period of January 1, 2012,
through December 31, 2012.1 The
Department received a timely request
for a CVD administrative review from
Petitioners 2 for RZBC Group Co., Ltd.,
RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export
Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd.
(collectively, RZBC). The Department
also received timely requests from RZBC
and Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd.
(Laiwu) for a CVD administrative review
of themselves. On June 28, 2013, the
Department published the notice of
initiation of this CVD administrative
review with respect to the two
companies.3 On July 31, 2013, Laiwu
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 78 FR 25423
(May 1, 2013).
2 Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill,
Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas
LLC (collectively, Petitioners).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM
Continued
05SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54623-54625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21577]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 130823751-3751-01]
Effects of Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls
AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: BIS is seeking public comments on the effect of existing
foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration
Regulations. BIS is requesting public comments to conduct consultations
with U.S. industries. Section 6 of the Export Administration Act (EAA)
requires BIS to consult with industry on the effect of such controls
and to report the results of the consultations to Congress. Comments
from all interested persons are welcome. All comments will be made
available for public inspection and copying and included in a report to
be submitted to Congress.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this rule may be submitted to the Federal e-
Rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov). The regulations.gov ID for
this rule is: BIS-2013-0019. Comments may also be sent by email to
publiccomments@bis.doc.gov or on paper to Regulatory Policy Division,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th Street &
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2099B, Washington, DC 20230. Include the
phrase ``FPBEC
[[Page 54624]]
Comment'' in the subject line of the email message or on the envelope
if submitting comments on paper. All comments must be in writing
(either submitted to regulations.gov, by email or on paper). All
comments, including personal identifying information (e.g., name,
address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter, will be a matter of
public record and will be available for public inspection and copying.
Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive
or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy L. Patts, Foreign Policy
Division, Office of Nonproliferation Controls and Treaty Compliance,
Bureau of Industry and Security, telephone 202-482-6389. The current
Annual Foreign Policy Report to the Congress is available at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/about-bis/newsroom/archives/27-about-bis/502-foreign-policy-reports, and copies may also be requested by calling the
Office of Nonproliferation Controls and Treaty Compliance at the number
listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Foreign policy-based controls in the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) are implemented pursuant to section 6
of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, (50 U.S.C. app.
Sec. Sec. 2401-2420 (2000)) (EAA). The current foreign policy-based
export controls maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
are set forth in the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774), including in parts 742
(CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use Based Controls) and 746
(Embargoes and Other Special Controls). These controls apply to a range
of countries, items, activities and persons, including:
Entities acting contrary to the national security or
foreign policy interests of the United States (Sec. 744.11);
Certain general purpose microprocessors for ``military
end-uses'' and ``military end-users'' (Sec. 744.17);
Significant items (SI);
Hot section technology for the development, production, or
overhaul of commercial aircraft engines, components, and systems (Sec.
742.14);
Encryption items (Sec. 742.15);
Crime control and detection items (Sec. 742.7);
Specially designed implements of torture (Sec. 742.11);
Certain firearms and related items based on the
Organization of American States Model Regulations for the Control of
the International Movement of Firearms, their Parts and Components and
Munitions included within the Inter-American Convention Against the
Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition,
Explosives, and Other Related Materials (Sec. 742.17);
Regional stability items (Sec. 742.6);
Equipment and related technical data used in the design,
development, production, or use of certain rocket systems and unmanned
air vehicles (Sec. Sec. 742.5 and 744.3);
Chemical precursors and biological agents, associated
equipment, technical data, and software related to the production of
chemical and biological agents (Sec. Sec. 742.2 and 744.4) and various
chemicals included on the list of those chemicals controlled pursuant
to the Chemical Weapons Convention (Sec. 742.18);
Communication intercepting devices, software and
technology (Sec. 742.13);
Nuclear propulsion (Sec. 744.5);
Aircraft and vessels (Sec. 744.7);
Restrictions on exports and reexports to certain persons
designated as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (Sec.
744.8);
Certain cameras to be used by military end-users or
incorporated into a military commodity (Sec. 744.9);
Countries designated as Supporters of Acts of
International Terrorism (Sec. Sec. 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19,
746.2, 746.4, 746.7, and 746.9);
Certain entities in Russia (Sec. 744.10);
Individual terrorists and terrorist organizations
(Sec. Sec. 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14);
Certain persons designated by Executive Order 13315
(``Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials
and Their Family Members'') (Sec. 744.18);
Certain sanctioned entities (Sec. 744.20);
Embargoed countries (Part 746); and
U.N. arms embargoes (Sec. 746.1).
In addition, the EAR impose foreign policy-based export controls on
certain nuclear-related commodities, technology, end-uses and end-users
(Sec. Sec. 742.3 and 744.2), in part, implementing section 309(c) of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 2139a).
Under the provisions of section 6 of the EAA, export controls
maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension.
Section 6 of the EAA requires a report to Congress when foreign policy-
based export controls are extended. The EAA expired on August 20, 2001.
Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783
(2002)), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR
16129 (March 13, 2013), which has been extended by successive
Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 8, 2013 (78
FR 49105 (Aug. 12, 2013)), continues the EAR and, to the extent
permitted by law, the provisions of the EAA, in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
(2000) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). The Department of Commerce, as
appropriate, follows the provisions of section 6 of the EAA by
reviewing its foreign policy-based export controls, conducting
consultations with industry through public comments on such controls,
and preparing a report to be submitted to Congress. In January 2013,
the Secretary of Commerce, on the recommendation of the Secretary of
State, extended for one year all foreign policy-based export controls
then in effect. BIS is now soliciting public comment on the effects of
extending the existing foreign policy-based export controls from
January 2014 to January 2015. Among the criteria considered in
determining whether to extend U.S. foreign policy-based export controls
are the following:
1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended
foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the
availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology
proposed for such controls;
2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be
achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;
3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy
objectives of the United States and with the overall U.S. policy toward
the country subject to the controls;
4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such
controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving
the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S.
foreign policy interests;
5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives
versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the
United States, the competitive position of the United States in the
international economy, the international reputation of the United
States as a supplier of goods and technology; and
6. The ability of the United States to effectively enforce the
controls.
BIS is particularly interested in receiving comments on the
economic impact of proliferation controls. BIS is also interested in
industry information relating to the following:
1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export
controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those
countries not targeted by
[[Page 54625]]
sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective
customers regarding U.S. foreign policy-based export controls.
2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For
example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on
goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?
3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign
trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy based export
controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and
requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably
supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).
4. Suggestions for bringing foreign policy-based export controls
more into line with multilateral practice.
5. Comments or suggestions to make multilateral controls more
effective.
6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based
export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the
controls.
7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based
export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial
sectors.
8. Suggestions for measuring the effect of foreign policy-based
export controls on trade.
9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls
on targeted countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is also interested
in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing
foreign policy-based export controls.
Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as
possible. All comments received before the close of the comment period
will be considered by BIS in reviewing the controls and in developing
the report to Congress. All comments received in response to this
notice will be displayed on BIS's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web
site at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ and on the Federal e-Rulemaking
portal at www.Regulations.gov. All comments will also be included in a
report to Congress, as required by section 6 of the EAA, which directs
that BIS report to Congress the results of its consultations with
industry on the effects of foreign policy-based controls.
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-21577 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P