Request for Comments Concerning the Imposition of Section 1758 Technology Export Controls on Instruments for the Automated Chemical Synthesis of Peptides, 55930-55932 [2022-19430]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55930
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules
271° radials; to Gipper. From Youngstown,
OH; INT Youngstown 116° and Revloc, PA,
300° radials; Revloc; INT Revloc 107° and
Lancaster, PA, 280° radials; to Lancaster.
*
*
*
*
*
V–30 [Amended]
From Badger, WI; INT Badger 102° and
Pullman, MI, 303° radials; to Pullman. From
Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; East Texas,
PA; INT East Texas 095° and Solberg, NJ,
264° radials; to Solberg.
*
*
*
*
*
V–100 [Amended]
From Medicine Bow, WY; Scottsbluff, NE;
Alliance, NE; Ainsworth, NE; to O’Neill, NE.
From Waterloo, IA; to Dubuque, IA. From
Northbrook, IL; INT Northbrook 095° and
Keeler, MI, 271° radials; to Keeler.
*
*
*
*
*
V–233 [Amended]
From Spinner, IL; INT Spinner 061° and
Roberts, IL, 233° radials; Roberts; Knox, IN;
to Goshen, IN. From Mount Pleasant, MI; INT
Mount Pleasant 351° and Gaylord, MI, 207°
radials; Gaylord; to Pellston, MI.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 1,
2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022–19472 Filed 9–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
15 CFR Part 774
[Docket No. 220826–0174]
RIN 0694–AI84
Request for Comments Concerning the
Imposition of Section 1758 Technology
Export Controls on Instruments for the
Automated Chemical Synthesis of
Peptides
Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS), Department of
Commerce, maintains controls on the
export, reexport and transfer (incountry) of dual-use items and less
sensitive military items pursuant to the
Export Administration Regulations
(EAR), including the Commerce Control
List (CCL). Certain instruments for the
automated synthesis of peptides
(automated peptide synthesizers) have
been identified by BIS for evaluation
according to the criteria in section 1758
of the Export Control Reform Act of
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
2018 (ECRA) pertaining to emerging and
foundational technologies. BIS is
seeking public comments on the
potential uses of this technology,
particularly with respect to its impact
on U.S. national security (e.g., whether
such technology could provide the
United States, or any of its adversaries,
with a qualitative military or
intelligence advantage). This advance
notice of proposed rulemaking also
requests public comments on how to
ensure that the scope of any controls
that may be imposed on this technology
would be effective (in terms of
protecting U.S. national security
interests) and appropriate (with respect
to minimizing their potential impact on
legitimate commercial or scientific
applications).
DATES: Comments must be received by
BIS no later than October 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by regulations.gov docket
number BIS–2022–0023 or by RIN
0694–AI84, through any of the
following:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. You can find this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
by searching for its regulations.gov
docket number, which is BIS–2022–
0023.
• Email: PublicComments@
bis.doc.gov. Include RIN 0694–AI84 in
the subject line of the message.
All filers using the portal or email
should include the name of the person
or entity submitting the comments in
the name of their file(s), in accordance
with the instructions below. Anyone
submitting business confidential
information should clearly identify the
business confidential portion at the time
of submission, file a statement justifying
nondisclosure and referring to the
specific legal authority claimed, and
provide a non-confidential submission
to be made publicly available.
For comments submitted
electronically containing business
confidential information, the file name
of the business confidential version
should begin with the characters ‘‘BC.’’
Any page containing business
confidential information must be clearly
marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’
on the top of that page. The
corresponding non-confidential version
of those comments must be clearly
marked ‘‘PUBLIC.’’ The file name of the
non-confidential version should begin
with the character ‘‘P.’’ The ‘‘BC’’ and
‘‘P’’ should be followed by the name of
the person or entity submitting the
comments or rebuttal comments. Any
submissions with file names that do not
begin with a ‘‘P’’ or ‘‘BC’’ will be
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
assumed to be public and will be made
publicly available through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions on automated peptide
synthesizers, contact Dr. Tara Gonzalez,
Chemical and Biological Controls
Division, Office of Nonproliferation and
Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry
and Security, Telephone: (202) 482–
3343, Email: Tara.Gonzalez@
bis.doc.gov. For questions on the
submission of comments, contact
Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy
Division, Office of Exporter Services,
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, (202) 482–
6057, Email: RPD2@bis.doc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Identification of Section 1758
Technologies
As part of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year 2019, Public Law 115–232,
Congress enacted the Export Control
Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C.
4801–4852. Section 1758 of ECRA (as
codified under 50 U.S.C. 4817)
authorizes the Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) to establish appropriate
controls on the export, reexport or
transfer (in-country) of emerging and
foundational technologies essential to
the national security of the United
States. Due to the absence of specific
definitions or other guidance in ECRA
differentiating the terms ‘‘emerging
technology’’ or ‘‘foundational
technology,’’ and in order to ensure
greater efficiency in implementing
controls for such items, BIS has chosen
to characterize such technologies as
‘‘Section 1758 technologies’’ for
purposes of section 1758 of ECRA,
rather than characterizing a specific
technology as either ‘‘emerging’’ or
‘‘foundational.’’
As described in section 1758(a)(2)(B)
of ECRA, the identification of Section
1758 technologies takes into account: (i)
the development of these technologies
in foreign countries; (ii) the effect export
controls imposed pursuant to this
section may have on the development of
such technologies in the United States;
and (iii) the effectiveness of export
controls imposed pursuant to this
section on limiting the proliferation of
the emerging and foundational
technologies in foreign countries.
The Secretary of Commerce must
establish appropriate controls on the
export, reexport or transfer (in-country)
of technology identified pursuant to the
Section 1758 process. In so doing, the
Secretary must consider the potential
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules
end-uses and end-users of Section 1758
technologies, and the countries to which
exports from the United States are
restricted (e.g., embargoed countries).
While the Secretary has discretion to set
the level of export controls, at a
minimum a license must be required for
the export of such technologies to
countries subject to a U.S. embargo,
including those countries subject to an
arms embargo.
In addition, section 1758(a)(2)(C) of
ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4817(a)(2)(C)) requires
the interagency process for identifying
Section 1758 technologies to include a
notice and comment period.
November 19 Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
On November 19, 2018, BIS published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, ‘‘Review of Controls for
Certain Emerging Technologies’’ (83 FR
58201) (November 19 ANPRM). The
November 19 ANPRM identified
biotechnology in a representative list of
fourteen technology categories
concerning which BIS sought public
comment to determine whether there
are specific emerging technologies that
are essential to U.S. national security
and for which effective controls can be
implemented. The biotechnologyrelated comments submitted to BIS in
response to its November 19 ANPRM
are not addressed in this ANPRM,
because none of the comments
specifically addressed the question of
export controls on automated peptide
synthesizers.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Evaluation of Automated Peptide
Synthesizers Pursuant to Section 1758
of ECRA
Instruments for the automated
synthesis of peptides (automated
peptide synthesizers) have been
identified by BIS for evaluation
according to the criteria in section 1758
of ECRA pertaining to emerging and
foundational technologies.
Peptides and polypeptides are
polymeric chains of amino acids, linked
together by peptide bonds. Proteins are
three-dimensional (3D) macromolecules
composed of one or more folded large
chains of polypeptides. Proteins must
fold into the correct 3D shape to be
functionally active. The first peptide
bond was synthesized over 100 years
ago. However, in the last few decades,
advances in chemical synthesis methods
have established automated peptide
synthesis as a common laboratory
technique.1 Long-established synthesis
1 R.B. Merrifield, Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis.
I. The Synthesis of a Tetrapeptide, 85 J. Am.
Chemistry Soc’y 2149 (1963).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
methods using
fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl (Fmoc)
chemistry can reliably and routinely
produce high quality polypeptides
around 50 amino acids in length.2
Recent advances in peptide synthesis
technology and instrumentation have
increased both the speed of peptide
synthesis and the length of peptide
products, including peptides and
proteins greater than 100 amino acids in
length.3 Most protein toxins that are
controlled under Export Control
Classification Number (ECCN) 1C351 on
the Commerce Control List (CCL) (see
Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the
EAR) are over 100 amino acids in length
and have an average length of 300
amino acids (with the notable exception
of conotoxins, which range between 10–
100 amino acids in length).
Consequently, absent the imposition of
additional controls on the export,
reexport or transfer (in-country) of
certain peptide synthesis technology
and instrumentation (e.g., automated
peptide synthesizers), there would be an
increased risk that such technology and
instrumentation could be used to
produce controlled toxins for biological
weapons purposes.
Request for Comments
Consistent with section 1758(a)(2)(C)
of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4817(a)(2)(C)), BIS
welcomes comments on the following
questions. If specific automated peptide
synthesizer instruments are described
by respondents, BIS requests that this
should be done, to the extent
practicable, within the context of the
following questions.
(1) What is the current state of
development of automated peptide
synthesizers in the United States,
including those having primarily
academic or commercial applications,
and how does this compare with that of
other countries (e.g., is the United States
at the forefront of such development in
the academic and commercial fields)?
Where possible, please identify any
publicly available studies that support
your position.
(2) What is the current availability
and predominate application(s) of
automated peptide synthesizers in the
United States and how does this
compare with that of other countries
(e.g., how common is the use of these
2 Da’san M.M. Jaradat, Thirteen Decades of
Peptide Synthesis: Key Developments in Solid
Phase Peptide Synthesis and Amide Bond
Formation Utilized in Peptide Ligation, 50 Amino
Acids 39 (2017).
3 Sameer S. Kulkarni et al., Rapid and Efficient
Protein Synthesis Through Expansion of the Native
Chemical Ligation Concept, Nature Revs.
Chemistry, Mar. 29, 2018, at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55931
instruments in life sciences laboratories/
institutions and other academic or
commercial settings)?
(3) To what extent are custom peptide
synthesis services available in the
United States and other countries, and
would the availability of such services
(particularly for academic or
commercial applications) be likely to
impact domestic or foreign demand for
automated peptide synthesizers?
(4) To what extent are current or nearterm developments in peptide synthesis
technology expected to address the
challenges of peptide length, sequence
fidelity, and protein folding (e.g., are
efforts currently underway to integrate
protein folding into the automation
process)?
(5) To what extent would the
establishment of Section 1758
technology export controls on
automated peptide synthesizer
instruments, and related ‘‘software’’ and
‘‘technology,’’ impact U.S. technological
leadership in this field (e.g., within the
academic or commercial spheres) and
would this impact be distinctly different
if controls were placed primarily on
‘‘software’’ as opposed to hardware, or
vice versa?
(6) To what extent would the
imposition of Section 1758 technology
export controls on automated peptide
synthesizer instruments, and related
‘‘software’’ and ‘‘technology,’’ likely be
effective in terms of limiting the
proliferation of these items abroad
(including the potential use of such
items to produce controlled toxins for
biological weapons purposes)?
(7) To what extent has the increased
availability of lower cost coupling
reagents, together with recent advances
in automated peptide synthesizers and
related technology, overcome economic
or technological factors that previously
might have limited the availability and
use of this technology, abroad?
(8) To what extent should Section
1758 technology export controls on
peptide synthesizer technology be
implemented multilaterally (rather than
unilaterally), in the interest of
increasing their effectiveness and
minimizing their impact on U.S.
industry?
Several respondents who commented
on BIS’s November 19 ANPRM
indicated their preference for
multilateral export controls over
unilateral export controls, because the
former typically place U.S. industry on
a more level playing field with respect
to producers/suppliers in other
countries. In this regard, note that
section 1758(c) of ECRA (as codified
under 50 U.S.C. 4817(c)) provides that
‘‘the Secretary of State, in consultation
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
55932
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules
with the Secretary [of Commerce] and
the Secretary of Defense, and the heads
of other Federal agencies, as
appropriate, shall propose that any
technology identified pursuant to
subsection (a) [of ECRA] [which
addresses the interagency process for
identifying Section 1758 technologies]
be added to the list of technologies
controlled by the relevant multilateral
export control regimes.’’
Finally, BIS encourages comments
addressing any other automated peptide
synthesizer technology topics deemed to
be relevant to this inquiry.
Comments should be submitted as
described in the ADDRESSES section of
this ANPRM and must be received no
later than October 28, 2022.
This ANPRM has been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ although
not economically significant, under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
this ANPRM has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022–19430 Filed 9–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0179]
Prior Notice of Imported Food
Questions and Answers (Edition 4);
Draft Guidance for Industry;
Availability
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is
announcing the availability of a draft
guidance for industry entitled ‘‘Prior
Notice of Imported Food Questions and
Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry
(Edition 4).’’ The draft guidance adds
three additional questions. One question
relates to any effect systems recognition
or equivalency determinations have on
prior notice requirements. The other
two questions relate to FDA’s notice to
a submitter of prior notice of an FDA
refusal for inadequate prior notice or
hold if the food article is from a foreign
facility that is not registered, and
address the timeframe for making
requests for FDA review of such a
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted electronically,
including attachments, to https://
www.regulations.gov will be posted to
the docket unchanged. Because your
comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your
comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted,
such as medical information, your or
anyone else’s Social Security number, or
confidential business information, such
as a manufacturing process. Please note
that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your
comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
• If you want to submit a comment
with confidential information that you
do not wish to be made available to the
public, submit the comment as a
written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).
Written/Paper Submissions
HHS.
ACTION:
refusal or hold. FDA is also making
other technical and editorial changes.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on the draft guidance
by November 14, 2022 to ensure that we
consider your comment on this draft
guidance before we begin work on the
final version of the guidance.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit written/paper submissions as
follows:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for
written/paper submissions): Dockets
Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments
submitted to the Dockets Management
Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
well as any attachments, except for
information submitted, marked and
identified, as confidential, if submitted
as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket No. FDA–
2011–N–0179 for ‘‘Prior Notice of
Imported Food Questions and Answers;
Draft Guidance for Industry (Edition 4).’’
Received comments will be placed in
the docket and, except for those
submitted as ‘‘Confidential
Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dockets Management Staff between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, 240–402–7500.
• Confidential Submissions—To
submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be
made publicly available, submit your
comments only as a written/paper
submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential
with a heading or cover note that states
‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ FDA
will review this copy, including the
claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second
copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/
blacked out, will be available for public
viewing and posted on https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff.
If you do not wish your name and
contact information to be made publicly
available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not
in the body of your comments and you
must identify this information as
‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked
as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed
except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20
and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA’s posting
of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access
the information at: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-201509-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or the
electronic and written/paper comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, 240–402–7500.
You may submit comments on any
guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)). Submit written requests
for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Operational Policy,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and
Drug Administration, Element Building,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD
20852. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the draft guidance
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Henderson, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,
Element Building, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55930-55932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19430]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
15 CFR Part 774
[Docket No. 220826-0174]
RIN 0694-AI84
Request for Comments Concerning the Imposition of Section 1758
Technology Export Controls on Instruments for the Automated Chemical
Synthesis of Peptides
AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Department of
Commerce, maintains controls on the export, reexport and transfer (in-
country) of dual-use items and less sensitive military items pursuant
to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), including the Commerce
Control List (CCL). Certain instruments for the automated synthesis of
peptides (automated peptide synthesizers) have been identified by BIS
for evaluation according to the criteria in section 1758 of the Export
Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) pertaining to emerging and
foundational technologies. BIS is seeking public comments on the
potential uses of this technology, particularly with respect to its
impact on U.S. national security (e.g., whether such technology could
provide the United States, or any of its adversaries, with a
qualitative military or intelligence advantage). This advance notice of
proposed rulemaking also requests public comments on how to ensure that
the scope of any controls that may be imposed on this technology would
be effective (in terms of protecting U.S. national security interests)
and appropriate (with respect to minimizing their potential impact on
legitimate commercial or scientific applications).
DATES: Comments must be received by BIS no later than October 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by regulations.gov
docket number BIS-2022-0023 or by RIN 0694-AI84, through any of the
following:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
You can find this advance notice of proposed rulemaking by searching
for its regulations.gov docket number, which is BIS-2022-0023.
Email: [email protected]. Include RIN 0694-AI84
in the subject line of the message.
All filers using the portal or email should include the name of the
person or entity submitting the comments in the name of their file(s),
in accordance with the instructions below. Anyone submitting business
confidential information should clearly identify the business
confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement
justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority
claimed, and provide a non-confidential submission to be made publicly
available.
For comments submitted electronically containing business
confidential information, the file name of the business confidential
version should begin with the characters ``BC.'' Any page containing
business confidential information must be clearly marked ``BUSINESS
CONFIDENTIAL'' on the top of that page. The corresponding non-
confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked
``PUBLIC.'' The file name of the non-confidential version should begin
with the character ``P.'' The ``BC'' and ``P'' should be followed by
the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal
comments. Any submissions with file names that do not begin with a
``P'' or ``BC'' will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly
available through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on automated peptide
synthesizers, contact Dr. Tara Gonzalez, Chemical and Biological
Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-3343, Email:
[email protected]. For questions on the submission of comments,
contact Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of Exporter
Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202) 482-6057, Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Identification of Section 1758 Technologies
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year 2019, Public Law 115-232, Congress enacted the Export Control
Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852. Section 1758 of ECRA
(as codified under 50 U.S.C. 4817) authorizes the Bureau of Industry
and Security (BIS) to establish appropriate controls on the export,
reexport or transfer (in-country) of emerging and foundational
technologies essential to the national security of the United States.
Due to the absence of specific definitions or other guidance in ECRA
differentiating the terms ``emerging technology'' or ``foundational
technology,'' and in order to ensure greater efficiency in implementing
controls for such items, BIS has chosen to characterize such
technologies as ``Section 1758 technologies'' for purposes of section
1758 of ECRA, rather than characterizing a specific technology as
either ``emerging'' or ``foundational.''
As described in section 1758(a)(2)(B) of ECRA, the identification
of Section 1758 technologies takes into account: (i) the development of
these technologies in foreign countries; (ii) the effect export
controls imposed pursuant to this section may have on the development
of such technologies in the United States; and (iii) the effectiveness
of export controls imposed pursuant to this section on limiting the
proliferation of the emerging and foundational technologies in foreign
countries.
The Secretary of Commerce must establish appropriate controls on
the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of technology identified
pursuant to the Section 1758 process. In so doing, the Secretary must
consider the potential
[[Page 55931]]
end-uses and end-users of Section 1758 technologies, and the countries
to which exports from the United States are restricted (e.g., embargoed
countries). While the Secretary has discretion to set the level of
export controls, at a minimum a license must be required for the export
of such technologies to countries subject to a U.S. embargo, including
those countries subject to an arms embargo.
In addition, section 1758(a)(2)(C) of ECRA (50 U.S.C.
4817(a)(2)(C)) requires the interagency process for identifying Section
1758 technologies to include a notice and comment period.
November 19 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On November 19, 2018, BIS published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, ``Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies''
(83 FR 58201) (November 19 ANPRM). The November 19 ANPRM identified
biotechnology in a representative list of fourteen technology
categories concerning which BIS sought public comment to determine
whether there are specific emerging technologies that are essential to
U.S. national security and for which effective controls can be
implemented. The biotechnology-related comments submitted to BIS in
response to its November 19 ANPRM are not addressed in this ANPRM,
because none of the comments specifically addressed the question of
export controls on automated peptide synthesizers.
Evaluation of Automated Peptide Synthesizers Pursuant to Section 1758
of ECRA
Instruments for the automated synthesis of peptides (automated
peptide synthesizers) have been identified by BIS for evaluation
according to the criteria in section 1758 of ECRA pertaining to
emerging and foundational technologies.
Peptides and polypeptides are polymeric chains of amino acids,
linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins are three-dimensional (3D)
macromolecules composed of one or more folded large chains of
polypeptides. Proteins must fold into the correct 3D shape to be
functionally active. The first peptide bond was synthesized over 100
years ago. However, in the last few decades, advances in chemical
synthesis methods have established automated peptide synthesis as a
common laboratory technique.\1\ Long-established synthesis methods
using fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl (Fmoc) chemistry can reliably and
routinely produce high quality polypeptides around 50 amino acids in
length.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ R.B. Merrifield, Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis. I. The
Synthesis of a Tetrapeptide, 85 J. Am. Chemistry Soc'y 2149 (1963).
\2\ Da'san M.M. Jaradat, Thirteen Decades of Peptide Synthesis:
Key Developments in Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis and Amide Bond
Formation Utilized in Peptide Ligation, 50 Amino Acids 39 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent advances in peptide synthesis technology and instrumentation
have increased both the speed of peptide synthesis and the length of
peptide products, including peptides and proteins greater than 100
amino acids in length.\3\ Most protein toxins that are controlled under
Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C351 on the Commerce
Control List (CCL) (see Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) are
over 100 amino acids in length and have an average length of 300 amino
acids (with the notable exception of conotoxins, which range between
10-100 amino acids in length). Consequently, absent the imposition of
additional controls on the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of
certain peptide synthesis technology and instrumentation (e.g.,
automated peptide synthesizers), there would be an increased risk that
such technology and instrumentation could be used to produce controlled
toxins for biological weapons purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sameer S. Kulkarni et al., Rapid and Efficient Protein
Synthesis Through Expansion of the Native Chemical Ligation Concept,
Nature Revs. Chemistry, Mar. 29, 2018, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Comments
Consistent with section 1758(a)(2)(C) of ECRA (50 U.S.C.
4817(a)(2)(C)), BIS welcomes comments on the following questions. If
specific automated peptide synthesizer instruments are described by
respondents, BIS requests that this should be done, to the extent
practicable, within the context of the following questions.
(1) What is the current state of development of automated peptide
synthesizers in the United States, including those having primarily
academic or commercial applications, and how does this compare with
that of other countries (e.g., is the United States at the forefront of
such development in the academic and commercial fields)? Where
possible, please identify any publicly available studies that support
your position.
(2) What is the current availability and predominate application(s)
of automated peptide synthesizers in the United States and how does
this compare with that of other countries (e.g., how common is the use
of these instruments in life sciences laboratories/institutions and
other academic or commercial settings)?
(3) To what extent are custom peptide synthesis services available
in the United States and other countries, and would the availability of
such services (particularly for academic or commercial applications) be
likely to impact domestic or foreign demand for automated peptide
synthesizers?
(4) To what extent are current or near-term developments in peptide
synthesis technology expected to address the challenges of peptide
length, sequence fidelity, and protein folding (e.g., are efforts
currently underway to integrate protein folding into the automation
process)?
(5) To what extent would the establishment of Section 1758
technology export controls on automated peptide synthesizer
instruments, and related ``software'' and ``technology,'' impact U.S.
technological leadership in this field (e.g., within the academic or
commercial spheres) and would this impact be distinctly different if
controls were placed primarily on ``software'' as opposed to hardware,
or vice versa?
(6) To what extent would the imposition of Section 1758 technology
export controls on automated peptide synthesizer instruments, and
related ``software'' and ``technology,'' likely be effective in terms
of limiting the proliferation of these items abroad (including the
potential use of such items to produce controlled toxins for biological
weapons purposes)?
(7) To what extent has the increased availability of lower cost
coupling reagents, together with recent advances in automated peptide
synthesizers and related technology, overcome economic or technological
factors that previously might have limited the availability and use of
this technology, abroad?
(8) To what extent should Section 1758 technology export controls
on peptide synthesizer technology be implemented multilaterally (rather
than unilaterally), in the interest of increasing their effectiveness
and minimizing their impact on U.S. industry?
Several respondents who commented on BIS's November 19 ANPRM
indicated their preference for multilateral export controls over
unilateral export controls, because the former typically place U.S.
industry on a more level playing field with respect to producers/
suppliers in other countries. In this regard, note that section 1758(c)
of ECRA (as codified under 50 U.S.C. 4817(c)) provides that ``the
Secretary of State, in consultation
[[Page 55932]]
with the Secretary [of Commerce] and the Secretary of Defense, and the
heads of other Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall propose that any
technology identified pursuant to subsection (a) [of ECRA] [which
addresses the interagency process for identifying Section 1758
technologies] be added to the list of technologies controlled by the
relevant multilateral export control regimes.''
Finally, BIS encourages comments addressing any other automated
peptide synthesizer technology topics deemed to be relevant to this
inquiry.
Comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section
of this ANPRM and must be received no later than October 28, 2022.
This ANPRM has been designated a ``significant regulatory action,''
although not economically significant, under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this ANPRM has been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-19430 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
