66290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

provided orally, it will be followed by 

written notice within two working days 

signed by the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration or 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s 

designee. The absence of BIS 

notification does not excuse the 

exporter from compliance with the 

license requirements of paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(c) License exception. Despite the 

prohibitions described in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, you may export, 

reexport, or transfer (in-country) items 

subject to the EAR under the provisions 

of License Exception GOV set forth in 

§ 740.11(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of the EAR. 

(d) License application procedure. 

When submitting a license application 

pursuant to this section, you must state 

in the ‘‘additional information’’ block of 

the application that ‘‘this application is 

submitted because of the license 

requirement in § 744.21 of the EAR 

(Restrictions on Certain Military End 

Uses in the People’s Republic of China 

or for a ‘Military End Use’ or ‘Military 

End User’ in Russia or Venezuela).’’ In 

addition, either in the additional 

information block of the application or 

in an attachment to the application, you 

must include for the PRC all known 

information concerning the military end 

use of the item(s) and for Russia or 

Venezuela, all known information 

concerning the ‘military end use’ and 

‘military end users’ of the item(s). If you 

submit an attachment with your license 

application, you must reference the 

attachment in the ‘‘additional 

information’’ block of the application. 

(e) License review standards. (1) 

Applications to export, reexport, or 

transfer items described in paragraph (a) 

of this section will be reviewed on a 

case-by-case basis to determine whether 

the export, reexport, or transfer would 

make a material contribution to the 

military capabilities of the PRC, Russia, 

or Venezuela, and would result in 

advancing the country’s military 

activities contrary to the national 

security interests of the United States. 

When it is determined that an export, 

reexport, or transfer would make such a 

contribution, the license will be denied. 

(2) Applications may be reviewed 

under chemical and biological weapons, 

nuclear nonproliferation, or missile 

technology review policies, as set forth 

in §§ 742.2(b)(4), 742.3(b)(4) and 

742.5(b)(4) of the EAR, if the end use 

may involve certain proliferation 

activities. 

(3) Applications for items requiring a 

license for other reasons that are 

destined to the PRC for a ‘military end 

use’ or that are destined to Russia or 

Venezuela for a ‘military end use’ or 

‘military end user’ also will be subject 

to the review policy stated in paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section. 

(f) Military end use. In this section, 

‘military end use’ means: incorporation 

into a military item described on the 

U.S. Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR 

part 121, International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations); incorporation into a 

military item described on the 

Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List 

(as set out on the Wassenaar 

Arrangement Web site at http://

www.wassenaar.org); incorporation into 

items classified under ECCNs ending in 

‘‘A018’’ or under ‘‘600 series’’ ECCNs; or 

for the ‘‘use,’’ ‘‘development,’’ or 

‘‘production’’ of military items 

described on the USML or the 

Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List, 

or items classified under ECCNs ending 

in ‘‘A018’’ or under ‘‘600 series’’ ECCNs. 

Note to paragraph (f) of this section: (1) As 

defined in Part 772 of the EAR, ‘‘use’’ means 

operation, installation (including on-site 

installation), maintenance (checking), repair, 

overhaul and refurbishing; ‘‘development’’ is 

related to all stages prior to serial production, 

such as: design, design research, design 

analyses, design concepts, assembly and 

testing of prototypes, pilot production 

schemes, design data, process of transforming 

design data into a product, configuration 

design, integration design, layouts; and 

‘‘production’’ means all production stages, 

such as: product engineering, manufacturing, 

integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, 

testing, quality assurance. 

(2) For purposes of this section, 

‘‘operation’’ means to cause to function as 

intended; ‘‘installation’’ means to make ready 

for use, and includes connecting, integrating, 

incorporating, loading software, and testing; 

‘‘maintenance’’ means performing work to 

bring an item to its original or designed 

capacity and efficiency for its intended 

purpose, and includes testing, measuring, 

adjusting, inspecting, replacing parts, 

restoring, calibrating, overhauling; and 

‘‘deployment’’ means placing in battle 

formation or appropriate strategic position. 

(g) Military end user. In this section, 

the term ‘military end user’ means the 

national armed services (army, navy, 

marine, air force, or coast guard), as well 

as the national guard and national 

police, government intelligence or 

reconnaissance organizations, or any 

person or entity whose actions or 

functions are intended to support 

‘military end uses’ as defined in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(h) Effects on contracts. Venezuela: 

Transactions involving the export, 

reexport or transfer (in country) of items 

to or within Venezuela are not subject 

to the provisions of § 744.21 if the 

contracts for such transactions were 

signed prior to November 7, 2014. 

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26465 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 311 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0145] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) is exempting records 

maintained in DMDC 17 DoD, entitled 

‘‘Continuous Evaluation Records for 

Personnel Security,’’ from pertinent 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. In the 

course of carrying out records checks for 

continuous evaluation, exempt records 

received from other systems of records 

may become part of this system. To the 

extent that copies of exempt records 

from those ‘other’ systems of records are 

maintained in this system, OSD claims 

the same exemptions for the records 

from those ‘other’ systems that are 

maintained in this system, as claimed 

for the original primary system of which 

they are a part. 

DATES: The rule is effective on January 

16, 2015 unless adverse comments are 

received by January 6, 2015. If adverse 

comment is received, the Department of 

Defense will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66291 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cindy Allard at (571) 372–0461. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

direct final rule makes nonsubstantive 

changes to the OSD Privacy Program 

rules. These changes will allow the 

Department to add an exemption rule to 

the OSD Privacy Program rules that will 

exempt applicable Department records 

and/or material from certain portions of 

the Privacy Act. This is being published 

as a direct final rule as the Department 

of Defense does not expect to receive 

any adverse comments, and so a 

proposed rule is unnecessary. 

Direct Final Rule and Significant 

Adverse Comments 

DoD has determined this rulemaking 

meets the criteria for a direct final rule 

because it involves nonsubstantive 

changes dealing with DoD’s 

management of its Privacy Programs. 

DoD expects no opposition to the 

changes and no significant adverse 

comments. However, if DoD receives a 

significant adverse comment, the 

Department will withdraw this direct 

final rule by publishing a notice in the 

Federal Register. A significant adverse 

comment is one that explains: (1) Why 

the direct final rule is inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s 

underlying premise or approach; or (2) 

why the direct final rule will be 

ineffective or unacceptable without a 

change. In determining whether a 

comment necessitates withdrawal of 

this direct final rule, DoD will consider 

whether it warrants a substantive 

response in a notice and comment 

process. 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a significant rule. This rule does 

not (1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a sector of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another Agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in these Executive orders. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C Chapter 6) 

It has been certified that this rule does 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it is concerned only with the 

administration of Privacy Act systems of 

records within DoD. A Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis is not required. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not impose additional information 

collection requirements on the public 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not involve a Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more and that it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

This rule does not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 311—OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT 

STAFF PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 311 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a. 

■ 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(23) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(23) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 17 DoD, Continuous Evaluation 

Records for Personnel Security. 

(i) Exemption: In the course of 

carrying out records checks for 

continuous evaluation, exempt records 

from other systems of records may in 

turn become part of the case records 

maintained in this system. To the extent 

that copies of exempt records from those 

‘other’ systems of records are 

maintained into this system, OSD 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records from those ‘other’ systems that 

are entered into this system, as claimed 

for the original primary system of which 

they are a part. 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 

(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(5), (k)(6), and 

(k)(7). 

(iii) Reasons: Records are only exempt 

from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a to the extent that such provisions 

have been identified and an exemption 

claimed for the original record and the 

purposes underlying the exemption for 

the original record still pertain to the 

record which is now maintained in this 

system of records. In general, the 

exemptions were claimed in order to 

protect properly classified information 

relating to national defense and foreign 

policy; to avoid interference during the 

conduct of criminal, civil, or 

administrative actions or investigations; 

to ensure protective services provided 

the President and others are not 

compromised; to protect the identity of 

confidential sources incident to Federal 

employment, military service, contract, 

and security clearance determinations; 

to preserve the confidentiality and 

integrity of Federal testing materials; 

and to safeguard evaluation materials 

used for military promotions when 

furnished by a confidential source. The 

exemption rule for the original records 

will identify the specific reasons why 

the records are exempt from specific 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

Dated: October 29, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26407 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0343; FRL–9918–84– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Washington State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) on 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES