[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51725-51730]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20980]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 730, 732, 738, 743, 748, 752, 762, 772, and 774

[Docket No. 140613501-5698-02]
RIN 0694-AG13

Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Special
Comprehensive License Provisions

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing the
Special Comprehensive License (SCL) authorization. Based on changes to
the EAR as part of Export Control Reform, BIS concludes that the SCL
has outlived its usefulness to the exporting public since recent
changes to the EAR permit exporters to accomplish similar results using
individual licenses and without undertaking the more onerous SCL
application. This rule also makes conforming amendments. These changes
are part of BIS's efforts to further update export controls under the
EAR consistent with the Retrospective Regulatory Review Initiative that
directs BIS and other federal agencies to streamline regulations and
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the public.

DATES: This is effective September 25, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Andrukonis, Director, Export
Management and Compliance Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau
of Industry and Security, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    BIS issues this final rule to remove the Special Comprehensive
License (SCL) provisions from the Export

Administration Regulations (EAR), consistent with the Retrospective
Regulatory Review Initiative and Export Control Reform. In the preamble
to a rule published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58704) (hereinafter ``the September 30 proposed rule'' or ``the
September 30 rule''), BIS reviewed the origins and historical nature of
the SCL, and described the specific sections of the EAR that BIS
proposed to amend. Based on changes to the EAR as part of Export
Control Reform, BIS concluded that the SCL has outlived its usefulness
to the exporting public since recent changes to the EAR permit
exporters to accomplish similar results using individual licenses and
without undertaking the more onerous SCL application.
    This rule finalizes the revisions to the EAR as described in the
September 30 proposed rule except for a modification discussed in the
Transition Guidance section of the preamble. In that guidance, BIS
proposed that all SCLs would expire one year from the date of
publication of a final rule that removes SCL provisions from the EAR or
on the expiration date of the SCL under the particular terms of the
license, whichever would come earlier. As a practical matter to
facilitate administrative ease for SCL holders who already have begun
to transition to licenses other than the SCL and for SCL holders who
have yet to begin that transition for their transactions under the EAR,
BIS provides instead in this final rule that all SCLs still in effect
at this publication will expire one year from the effective date of
this rule, which will be September 26, 2016. Further, during this
transition period, BIS will not accept new SCL applications or
amendments, including renewals, to outstanding SCLs. As stated in the
proposed rule, with the publication of this final rule, SCL holders may
choose to apply for four-year individual licenses for exporting and
reexporting items under the EAR or use available license exceptions.
Finally, as stated in the proposed rule, as with all transactions
subject to the EAR, the applicable recordkeeping requirements under 15
CFR part 762 will continue to apply to SCL transactions until the
applicable retention periods are fulfilled.

Public Comments on the September 30 Proposed Rule To Remove the SCL and
BIS Responses

    BIS received three comments from three SCL holders who are private
companies in the fields of geophysical and seismic technology on the
September 30 proposed rule. A summary of the comments and BIS responses
are below. Where possible, similar comments on the proposed rule have
been consolidated.

Advantages of the SCL Compared to Individual Licenses

    Comment 1: One commenter acknowledged that while the current
individual validated license, (individual license) offers advantages
previously only available with the SCL, the SCL offers additional
advantages that to a great extent do not exist with an individual
license. The commenter explained that the SCL allows the company, given
the company's volume of business, to operate effectively with minimal
interruptions and to ensure compliance for the following reasons: The
SCL is a single license requiring a single license application, which
is easier to track than a large number of individual licenses with
varying expiration dates; and the SCL has a four-year validity period,
while individual licenses may be, but are not automatically, granted
for up to four years, making planning for medium- and long-term
operations onerous. The commenter also noted that unlike individual
licenses for which amendments require a replacement license, the SCL
item or end user may be amended without submitting an entirely new
license application.
    Response 1: BIS acknowledges, as a practical matter, that there is
a likelihood exporters might need more than one individual license or
need to replace an existing license more than once within a four-year
validity period to complete transactions under the EAR. However, BIS
licensing information indicates that SCL holders also have needed to
amend their SCLs a number of times within the SCL four-year validity
period. It also indicates that the initial SCL application and review
process historically required that applicants submit more documents and
wait for decisions on those applications for a longer period than that
for an individual license. Currently, applying for an amendment to
either a SCL or a replacement for an individual license requires that
exporters submit in a less cumbersome manner such information
electronically through SNAP-R. Further, not all changes to individual
licenses require that they be replaced. As detailed in Section 750.7 of
the EAR, non-material changes to a license may be made without the
issuance of a replacement license. In addition, the four-year validity
period for an individual license is not as tentative or unpredictable
as the commenter suggests, given the updated provisions in Section
750.7(g) of the EAR. Finally, with regard to the ease of tracking SCLs
versus individual licenses, exporters are responsible for keeping track
of all authorizations allowed or granted to the exporter under the EAR.
While BIS continually seeks to decrease any unreasonable burden
exporters may have in complying with the EAR, BIS suggests that
exporters develop a degree of familiarity or predictability regarding
their business practices that allows them to review and predict what
resources and activities will be needed to complete their regulatory
obligations for export and reexport.
    Comment 2: A commenter stated that an advantage of the SCL is that
it contains a single set of conditions while the conditions for
individual license vary. The commenter further stated that the varying
conditions on individual licenses make compliance difficult if not
impossible. However, another commenter stated that SCL conditions and
individual license conditions for the commenter's individual licenses
are the same, as agreed to by BIS and the State Department's
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).
    Response 2: BIS agrees with the second commenter on this issue.
Conditions attached to a particular license, whether on an individual
license or SCL, remain the same for the duration of the validity
period. Should an exporter submit a replacement license, the related
changes could reasonably impact the nature and scope of the conditions
on that license. Even if there are variations between conditions on
different individual licenses, these variations may be justified in
light of the different fact sets for each license application.
    Comment 3: A commenter stated that the SCL is more flexible and
better fits a company that needs quick turnaround to compete in the
international marketplace, such as the market for subsea remotely
operated vehicles (ROVs) to support oil and gas exploration. The
commenter added, as an example of flexibility, that the United Kingdom
offers two week processing on flexible individual licenses, which
impose significantly less restrictive conditions as compared to the
individual licenses issued by the United States. The commenter further
stated that the SCL is critical to enabling the company to compete
effectively with foreign competitors while continuing to manufacture
controlled ROVs in the United States. Without the SCL, according to the
commenter, the commenter's competitiveness with foreign ROV
manufacturers, who function under less restrictive export

control regimes and with the benefit of flexible licensing, would be
negatively impacted.
    Response 3: BIS notes that the current features of the EAR's SCL
can be replicated in an individual license. More importantly, as noted
in Response to Comment 1, the review period for an individual license
is less cumbersome and time consuming than for a SCL application,
barring any missing information or significant interagency concerns
about the proposed transaction. Finally, the SCL holders are companies
with well-established license history under the EAR. These companies
have conducted business in their industries long enough to reasonably
forecast licensing needs, including needs for authorizations for
potential additional export or reexport opportunities, and submit
requests to BIS accordingly. Thus, the individual licensing process
described by the commenter should not negatively impact the commenter's
export and reexport interests under the EAR.
    Comment 4: A commenter stated that the SCL advances U.S. national
security and foreign policy interests. The commenter further stated
that it was not surprising that the September 30 proposed rule did not
suggest that eliminating the SCL furthers U.S. national security or
foreign policy interests because the existence of the SCL provides an
impetus for companies to develop and implement comprehensive Internal
Control Programs (ICPs), which are subject to audits by BIS. The
commenter also stated that the commenter's compliance with the EAR is
reinforced due to the stringent requirements for obtaining and relying
on a SCL.
    Response 4: BIS finds merit in the commenter's point that the SCL
has contributed to advancing U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests and provided an impetus for companies to invest in
comprehensive ICPs. Further, the commenter's point gives BIS an
opportunity to note that the elements of a SCL ICP are strong,
practical factors that will contribute to the success of transactions
using individual licenses authorized under the EAR. These factors
reflect that SCL holders are sophisticated businesses that manage well
their export licensing obligations, as noted in the Response to Comment
1.
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that SCL administrative and
compliance benefits greatly outweigh the SCL administrative burden,
unlike individual licenses. The commenter added that individual
licenses are tedious, time consuming and repetitious, and hamper
companies' abilities to respond to short-term bid opportunities.
    Response 5: As mentioned in the Response to Comment 3, barring an
insufficient individual license application or significant concerns
raised during interagency review, objectively the individual license
application process is less cumbersome and time consuming than the SCL
application process. BIS appreciates that the commenter does not mind
the administrative burden associated with the SCL. However, the point
of Export Control Reform and the President's Retrospective Regulatory
Review is for agencies to adopt regulatory changes that will remove
redundancies and offer more streamlined and practical requirements and
processes benefiting the greatest number of constituents while
facilitating the agencies' missions. An individual license should be
able to accommodate in a timely manner the commenter's efforts to
pursue short-term bid opportunities, especially given the company's
established licensing history under the EAR. Lastly, whether changes in
transactions require companies to submit an application to amend a SCL
or to replace an individual license (in case the change does not
qualify as a non-material change), the thoroughness and accuracy of the
application and the complexity of the basis for and type of change
requested will impact how quickly BIS can process a license
application, whether a SCL amendment or replacement license.

Alternative Authorizations Under the EAR (i.e., License Exceptions,
Validated End User (VEU) Authorization, etc.)

    Comment 6: One commenter stated that none of the changes to the EAR
described in the preamble of the September 30 proposed rule would make
up for that commenter's loss of the SCL. In particular, the commenter
stated that the existing license exceptions do not offer a viable
alternative for the commenter's operations because the majority of the
commenter's commodities fall under Export Control Classification Number
(ECCN) 6A001.a.2 and the only license exception allowed would be
License Exception Temporary imports, exports, reexports, and transfers
(in-country) (TMP), which does not meet the commenter's business needs
. A second commenter also stated that restrictions on available license
exceptions significantly limit the benefit of the exceptions. For
example, License Exceptions, such as Shipments to Country Group B
countries (GBS), cover only a fraction of controlled spare parts for
ROVs; and License Exception Servicing and replacement of parts and
equipment (RPL) only authorizes a one-for-one replacement of parts. The
second commenter also stated that License Exception Strategic Trade
Authorization (STA) does not solve the commenter's authorization needs
because the countries in which the commenter's ROVs are currently used
are not in Country Group A:5 and ROVs under ECCN 8A001 are not eligible
for export to STA Country Group A:6. Lastly, the commenter stated that
TMP does not solve the commenter's needs because installation and use
of ROVs abroad may go on for years and applying for individual licenses
to keep the ROVs abroad is a cumbersome process.
    Response 6: BIS understands that the scenario described by the
commenter relative to potential assistance provided by license
exceptions will not apply to every situation or exporter, but will
assist some exporters in certain situations.
    Comment 7: A commenter stated that the VEU Authorization would not
be a viable alternative to the SCL because of the limited number of
countries approved under the authorization.
    Response 7: BIS acknowledges that currently there are few approved
validated end users and countries. However, the use of VEU
Authorization for the existing approved end users and the respective
approved countries and items provides easier and accountable access for
U.S. companies and other companies. Therefore, the authorization
remains an option, which may be helpful for some exporters or
reexporters, including SCL holders.

Improvements in Individual Licenses

    Comment 8: One commenter stated that the process or procedures for
obtaining individual licenses under the EAR has not grown noticeably
simpler or more expeditious than when the commenter received its SCL.
The commenter further stated that SNAP-R is not new to the commenter,
and that application processing times also have not grown appreciably
shorter, noting that BIS reported that the average processing time to
review a license application was 29 days in FY 2010 and 26 days in FY
2013.
    Response 8: The system for submitting and processing license
applications has substantially improved over the decades. Although the
improvements that BIS has implemented do not perfectly accommodate
every licensable EAR transaction, they have resulted in a more
streamlined and comparably versatile licensing process when compared to
the protracted initial SCL

application. BIS reminds exporters that the updates for individual
license applications include four-year, or longer--per Section
750.7(g)--validity period, and allowing the listing of a greater number
of end-users, among other enhancements. Lastly, the September 30
proposed rule described developments and improvements under the EAR
that directly respond to the President's Retrospective Regulatory
Review Initiative.

Projected Impact of Removal of the SCL

    Comment 9: Raising a point similar to that in Comment 1, a
commenter stated that the removal of the SCL will increase the number
of individual licenses that must be managed, and that unlike the SCL,
exporters will be unable to amend export and reexport licenses. The
commenter noted that the commenter amends its SCL twice a year. The
commenter further stated that an increase in individual licenses will
require additional internal resources, and increased chances of freight
forwarder errors.
    Response 9: BIS acknowledges, as a practical matter, there is a
likelihood exporters might need more than one individual license or
need to replace an existing license more than once within a four-year
validity period to complete transactions under the EAR. However, BIS
licensing information indicates that SCL holders typically have applied
for additional licenses under the EAR to fully accommodate the SCL
holders'export and reexport needs under the EAR. Please see Response to
Comment 1. Regarding the commenter's assertion that exporters will be
unable to amend export and reexport licenses, BIS expects that changes
to individual licenses will be handled in a similar fashion as
amendments to SCL amendments.

Other

    Comment 10: A commenter suggested that to offset the removal of the
SCL, BIS should entertain the possibility of issuing export and
reexport licenses to include all countries except those sanctioned or
embargoed. The commenter believed that this approach would help
mitigate the risk of losing new business opportunities.
    Response 10: BIS will consider the commenter's recommendation
consistent with pertinent authorities and U.S. and allied policy
objectives.
    Comment 11: A commenter asserted that the two 2012 comments from
industry cited in the September 30 proposed rule that expressed
reservations about the benefits of the SCL do not extend to other U.S.
companies, including the commenter's company. The commenter went on to
say that other companies should determine if the benefits of a SCL do
not outweigh the burdens on an individual basis.
    Response 11: BIS did not intend to imply that the SCL has not
provided significant benefits to other U.S. companies. BIS included the
comments in question in the September 30 proposed rule because their
nature and quality were relevant to the priorities of the President's
Retrospective Regulatory Initiative. In keeping with that Initiative,
BIS published the September 30 proposed rule to determine if there were
better ways to serve the broad spectrum of constituents under the
jurisdiction of the EAR. That said, as already indicated, BIS believes
all current features of the SCL can be replicated in an individual
license, and thus the usefulness and effectiveness of export
authorizations under the EAR should not be impacted negatively by
removal of the SCL.

Description of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This rule publishes in final form the proposed amendments to the
SCL as described initially in the September 30 rule, except for one
change to the proposed expiration date of the SCL and two proposed
amendments that were overtaken by a recent rulemaking.

Change to Expiration Date of the SCL

    In the proposed rule, BIS proposed that all SCLs would expire one
year from the date of publication of a final rule or the expiration
date of the SCL under the particular terms of the license, whichever
would come earlier. BIS provides instead in this final rule that all
SCLs still in effect at this publication will expire one year from the
effective date of this rule, which will be September 26, 2016.

The Intervening Changes

    In the September 30 rule, BIS proposed to remove a reference to an
exception to required filing of support documents for a SCL by removing
and reserving paragraph (a)(6) of Section 748.9 (formerly Support
documents for license applications). A final rule, Revisions to Support
Document Requirements for License Applications under the Export
Administration Regulations, published in the Federal Register March 13,
2015 (80 FR 13210) (hereinafter ``the March 13 final rule''), revised
Section 748.9 (currently Support documents for evaluation of foreign
parties in license applications) and in doing so moved the reference to
the SCL support documents exception to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of the
section. In this final rule, BIS removes and reserves paragraph
(c)(1)(vi) of Section 748.9, which updates the amendment to Section
748.9(a)(6) proposed in the September 30 rule.
    In addition, BIS proposed to remove the reference to the SCL in
existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Section 748.12 (formerly Special
provisions for support documents). This paragraph provided that
exporters had a grace period of 45 days to comply with support
documents requirements for a license application if an item had been
removed from SCL eligibility. The March 13 final rule revised that
provision by removing references to the SCL in the provision and moving
the remainder of the provision to Section 748.9(h) of the EAR. The
revision in the March 13 final rule eliminates the need to retain the
amendment to Section 748.12 (currently Firearms Convention (FC) Import
Certificate) (a)(1)(iii) proposed in the September 30 rule. That update
will be reflected in the regulatory text of this final rule.

Export Administration Act

    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 amended by Executive Order 13637 of March
8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of
August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the
Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order
13637.

Rulemaking 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, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined to be a not significant regulatory action
for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. This rule amends collections previously approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Numbers 0694-0088,
``Simplified Network Application Processing + System (SNAP+) and the
Multi-Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of
43.8 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; 0694-0089, ``Special
Comprehensive License,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of 40
hours to complete an application, 30 minutes to complete annual
extension requests, 4 hours to complete amendments, and six hours to
perform recordkeeping and internal control program annual
certifications; and 0694-0152, ``Automated Export System (AES)
Program,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of three minutes or
0.05 hours per electronic submission.
    The total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and the aforementioned OMB
Control Numbers would be expected to decrease as a result of this
removal of part 752 of the EAR and related provisions in this rule
issued in final form, thereby reducing burden hours associated with
approved collections related to the EAR.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. The Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business
Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual
basis was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. BIS
received no comments that addressed the economic impact of this rule on
small entities. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required and one was not prepared.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 730

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees,
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and
critical materials.

15 CFR Parts 732, 748, and 752

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

15 CFR Parts 738 and 772

    Exports.

15 CFR Part 743

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

15 CFR Part 762

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry,
Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

15 CFR Part 774

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, under the authority of 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., parts
730, 732, 738, 743, 748, 752, 762, 772 and 774 of the Export
Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as
follows:

PART 730--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 730 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  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. 2151 note; 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. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O.
12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR
20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p.
608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918,
59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3
CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp.,
p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O.
13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR
58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR,
1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13338,
69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; E.O. 13637 of March 8, 2013,
78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013); Notice of September 17, 2014, 79 FR
56475 (September 19, 2014); Notice of November 7, 2014, 79 FR 67035
(November 12, 2014); Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January
22, 2015); Notice of May 6, 2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015); Notice
of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  730.8  [Amended]

0
2. Section 730.8 is amended by removing the next to last sentence in
paragraph (a)(5).

Supplement No. 1 to Part 730 [Amended]

0
3. Supplement No. 1 to Part 730 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries for Collection number ``0694-0088'' and
Collection number ``0694-0152''; and;
0
b. Removing the entry for Collection number ``0694-0089''.
    The revisions read as follow:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 730--Information Collection Requirements Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act: OMB Control Numbers

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Reference in the
        Collection No.                   Title                 EAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
0694-0088.....................  Simplified Network      Parts 746 and
                                 Application             748, and Sec.
                                 Processing+ System      762.2(b).
                                 (SNAP+) and the
                                 Multipurpose Export
                                 License Application.

                              * * * * * * *
0607-0152.....................  Automated Export        Sec.  Sec.
                                 System (AES) Program.   740.1(d),
                                                         740.3(a)(3),
                                                         754.2(h),
                                                         754.4(c),
                                                         758.1, 758.2,
                                                         and 758.3 of
                                                         the EAR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 732--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 732 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
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 7, 2015, 80 FR
48233 (August 11, 2015).

0
5. Section 732.5 is amended by revising the next to last sentence of
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  732.5  Steps regarding Electronic Export Information (EEI)
requirements, Destination Control Statements, and recordkeeping.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * DCS requirements do not apply to reexports * * *
* * * * *

Sec.  732.6  [Amended]

0
6. Section 732.6 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d).

PART 738--[AMENDED]

0
7. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 738 is revised to read as
follows:

    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 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  738.4  [Amended]

0
8. Section 738.4 is amended by removing the phrase ``or Special
Comprehensive License'' at the end of the sixth sentence in paragraph
(b)(3).

PART 743--[AMENDED]

0
9. The authority citation for part 743 is revised 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; E.O. 13637 of
March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013); 78 FR 16129; Notice of
August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  743.1  [Amended]

0
10. Section 743.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(2).

Sec.  743.4  [Amended]

0
11. Section 743.4 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(2).

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
12. The authority citation for part 748 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
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 7, 2015, 80 FR
48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  748.1  [Amended]

0
13. Section 748.1 is amended by removing the phrase ``Special
Comprehensive License or'' from the first parenthetical in the first
sentence in paragraph (d), introductory text.

Sec.  748.4  [Amended]

0
14. Section 748.4 is amended by removing the next to last sentence in
paragraph (h).

Sec.  748.7  [Amended]

0
15. Section 748.7 is amended by removing the phrase ``Special
Comprehensive Licenses and'' from the parenthetical in the second
sentence in paragraph (a) and from the parenthetical in the first
sentence in paragraph (d).

Sec.  748.9  [Amended]

0
16. Section 748.9 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(1)(vi).

Supplement No. 1 to Part 748 [Amended]

0
17. Supplement No. 1 to Part 748 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the next to last sentence and the caption, ``Special
Comprehensive License'' that precedes it in paragraph ``Block 5:'' and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph ``Block 8''.

PART 752--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
18. Remove and reserve part 752.

PART 762--[AMENDED]

0
19. The authority citation for part 762 is revised 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
7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  762.2  [Amended]

0
20. Section 762.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(b)(31) through (38).

PART 772--[AMENDED]

0
21. The authority citation for part 772 is revised 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
7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  772.1  [Amended]

0
22. Section 772.1 is amended by removing the definition ``Controlled in
fact.''

PART 774--[AMENDED]

0
23. The authority citation for part 774 is revised to read as follows:

    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 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 [Amended]

0
24. Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List) is amended
by removing the phrase ``Special Comprehensive Licenses,'' wherever it
is found.

    Dated: August 17, 2015.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-20980 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 51393]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0071]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated June 5, 2014, the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a
signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0071.
    Applicant: National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Mr. E. Keith
Holt, Deputy Chief Engineer, Communications & Signals, Engineering
Department, 4th Floor, 30th and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
    Amtrak seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of
automatic block signals and replacement of them with a cab signal-only
system between County Interlocking, Milepost (MP) 32.8, in New
Brunswick, NJ, and Ham Interlocking, MP 55.7, in Trenton, NJ, on
Amtrak's Northeast Division West, formerly the New York Division. The
tracks involved are Main Tracks 1 through 4. All four main tracks will
be signaled in both directions using a cab signal without wayside
signals system.
    The reason given for the proposed changes is that this work is
associated with the work being done under a high-speed rail grant from
FRA for Amtrak to make improvements in the affected area and eventually
raise passenger train speeds up to 160 mph.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 14, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-20510 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P