34942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Regulatory Impact

These regulations will not have a

substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, FAA

has determined that this final rule does

not have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order 12866. It has

been determined further that this action

involves an emergency regulation under

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it

is determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket

(otherwise, an evaluation is not

required). A copy of it, if filed, may be

obtained from the Rules Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends Section 39.13 by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

2000–11–04 Commander Aircraft

Company: Amendment 39–11752;

Docket No. 99–CE–81–AD.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

Model 114TC airplanes, serial numbers

20001 through 20027, certificated in any

category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions required by this AD are intended

to prevent the exhaust stack from detaching

from the turbocharger due to failure of the Vband exhaust clamp. This could result in the

release of high temperature gases inside the

engine compartment with a consequent

airplane cabin fire.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Action Compliance time Procedures

(1) Replace the Aeroquip V-band exhaust

clamp (Aeroquip part number 00624–55677–

340M or Lycoming alternate part number

40D21162–340M) with a part of improved

design (Aeroquip part number NH1009399-

10).

Accomplish this action within the next 25

hours time-in-service after June 23, 2000

(the effective date of this AD.

Perform this action in accordance with the

ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of commander Aircraft Company Service Bulletin No. SB–114–33A, dated May 9,

2000.

(2) Do NOT install an Aeroquip V-band exhaust clamp (Aeroquip part number 00624–

55677–340M or Lycoming alternate part

number 40D21162–340M) on any affected

airplane.

As of June 23, 2000 (the effective date of this

AD).

Not applicable.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane

Certification Office, approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact the Fort Worth Airplane

Certification Office, 2601 Meacham

Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0150;

telephone: (817) 222–5147; facsimile: (817)

222–5960.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? Actions required

by this AD must be done in accordance with

Commander Aircraft Company Service

Bulletin No. SB–114–33A, dated May 9,

2000. The Director of the Federal Register

approved this incorporation by reference

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You

may get copies from the Commander Aircraft

Company, Wiley Post Airport Hangar 8, 7200

NW 63rd Street, Bethany, Oklahoma 73008.

You may look at copies at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri, or

at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(i) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on June 23, 2000.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

22, 2000.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–13444 Filed 5–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

15 CFR Part 760

[Docket No. 000424111–0111–01]

RIN 0694–AA11

Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts

AGENCY: Bureau of Export

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Export

Administration is amending the Export

Administration Regulations (EAR) to

make certain editorial revisions and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34943

clarifications to the antiboycott

provisions of the EAR.

DATES: This rule is effective June 1,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert A. Diamond, Director,

Compliance Policy Division, Office of

Antiboycott Compliance, Bureau of

Export Administration, Telephone:

(202) 482–2381.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Bureau of Export Administration’s

(BXA) Office of Antiboycott Compliance

is responsible for the enforcement of the

antiboycott provisions of the Export

Administration Act (the Act), as

amended. The Act encourages, and in

some cases requires, U.S. persons to

refuse to participate in foreign boycotts

that the United States does not sanction.

U.S. persons are also required to report

receipt of boycott-related requests. The

antiboycott provisions of the Act are

implemented in part 760 of the Export

Administration Regulations (EAR).

Examples accompany the text of the

regulations to aid in their interpretation.

The antiboycott provisions of the EAR

became effective on January 18, 1978

and provided for a six-month grace

period ending June 21, 1978, when

enforcement of certain of the sections of

the regulations commenced. The

purpose of the delayed effective date,

which was provided by Section

4A(a)(2)(B) of the Export Administration

Act of 1977, as amended, was to allow

the regulated public time to adjust their

practices to the new regulations.

This rule removes all references to the

1978 grace period, including deletions

of language in the text of the regulations

and the interpretative examples that no

longer apply. In some cases, new text

has been added to preserve the

substantive meaning of the regulation or

example. The rule also removes the

phrase ‘‘effective date of this part’’ and

replaces it with the January 18, 1978

date of publication of the original rule.

In addition, this rule corrects paragraph

references, particularly in the

interpretative Supplements. It also

provides clarifying language in

instances where the original text was

unclear, as well as making

typographical corrections, as

appropriate.

This rule also addresses issues raised

by a proposed rule published by the

Department on September 26, 1989 (54

FR 39415). The proposed rule contained

revisions and clarifications to the

antiboycott provisions of the EAR that,

at the time, the Department found

‘‘[were] still debated or confusing.’’

Since 1989, the Department has had

an additional ten years of experience in

implementing the antiboycott

provisions of the EAR and has

concluded that some of the changes

proposed in 1989 rule remain useful.

These have been incorporated into the

final rule. In some cases, proposed

changes are incorporated with

additional revisions or clarifying

language as appropriate. Other proposed

changes addressed issues which the

Department no longer considers

‘‘debated or confusing’’ and have not

been adopted in the final rule.

The 1989 Proposed Rule addressed

the following issues:

(1) The intent provision to the

reporting requirement;

(2) The jurisdictional requirements

relating to the implementation of letters

of credit;

(3) The furnishing information

prohibitions about the nationality of

directors and blacklisted persons;

(4) The shipping requirement

exception to refusals to use blacklisted

vessels; and

(5) The import and shipping

document exception to information

about the nationality of carriers and

residence of manufacturers or suppliers.

At the end of the 30-day comment

period, three comments were received.

Two additional comments were

received after the comment period

closed. All five comments were taken

into account in developing this final

rule. Having reviewed the comments

received on this proposed rule, BXA is

now issuing this rule in final form.

Readers should note that part 769 was

redesignated as part 760 on March 25,

1996. All comments were received prior

to that date refer to part 769.

Accordingly, in the following

discussion, all references by

commenters to part 769 have been

changed to part 760 and its

corresponding sections.

The Intent Provision to the Reporting

Requirement

One commenter contended that the

two proposed changes to the intent

provisions fail to clarify the applicable

standards of intent. The Department’s

proposal removed example (ix) and the

accompanying Note following example

(x) to § 760.1(e). The commenter

believed that elimination of this

example would expand the scope of the

prohibitions, because the example is an

illustration of situations where the

prohibitions of § 760.2(d) may not apply

because either there is no intent to

violate the regulations, or the

information supplied is of a type

generally used for a legitimate business

purpose.

Example (ix) would permit U.S.

company A to furnish information

‘‘demonstrat[ing] that A does at least as

much business in [boycotting country] Y

and other countries engaged in a boycott

of [boycotted country X] as it does in

X.’’ By furnishing this information

relating to country X, A would be

violating § 760.2(d)(1) which prohibits a

U.S. person from furnishing information

concerning ‘‘his . . . past, present or

proposed business relationships . . .

with or in a boycotted country. . . .’’

By stating that A could furnish this

information, the example can lead to

unnecessary confusion concerning the

meaning of the intent requirement. The

commenter’s suggestion was not

adopted, and example (ix) and the

accompanying Note following example

(x) were deleted.

The commenter also contended that

the Department’s proposed revision to

§ 760.1(e)(3), which would remove the

intent as an element of the reporting

requirement, implied that a failure to

comply with the reporting requirements

would be a strict liability offense.

The intent requirement is set forth in

section 8(a) of the Export

Administration Act (Act). The

obligation to report, however, arises

from section 8(b)(2). In addition,

§ 760.1(e)(3) of the regulations was

adopted when part 760 included only

the prohibitions in § 760.2. When the

reporting requirements in § 760.5 were

later revised to reflect the requirements

of the 1977 amendments to the Export

Administration Act, the language of

§ 760.1(e)(3) was apparently overlooked

and not changed. The proposed rule

would revise the general statement in

paragraph (e)(3) to make it clear that

intent is an element only of a violation

of the prohibitions set forth in § 760.2 of

the regulations.

Furthermore, § 760.5(a)(2) provides

that requests are reportable if the U.S.

person ‘‘knows or has reason to know’’

that the purpose of the request is to

further a boycott or restrictive trade

practice. Thus, it is clear that failure to

report is not a strict liability violation,

and the proposed rule is adopted by

incorporating the change proposed to be

made in § 760.1(e)(3).

Jurisdictional Requirements Relating to

the Implementation of Letters of Credit

One commenter opposed the

proposed revision of § 760.1(d)(20),

which replaced the language ‘‘by this

part’’ with the phrase ‘‘by the

prohibition of § 760.2(f).’’ The

commenter contended that the effect of

this revision would be to subject the

implementation of letters of credit to the

other prohibitions contained in part

34944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

760, not only to the prohibition of

§ 760.2(f), which specifically addresses

the implementation of letters of credit.

The final rule makes no change to

§ 760.1(d)(20) because the Department

has concluded that the issue is no

longer debated or confusing.

One commenter suggested that an

additional example be included in the

regulations concerning a contract with a

form of a letter of credit that contains a

number of preprinted provisions. These

provisions would include a stipulation

that documents covering goods of Israeli

origin are not acceptable. However, the

letter of credit would simultaneously

contain a provision imposing the

requirement that the documents must

certify that the goods are 100 percent of

U.S. origin. This additional example

was not adopted because the

Department believes it is not of general

interest.

Furnishing Information About the

Nationality of Directors and About

Blacklisted Persons

The proposed rule would have

changed example (vii) to § 760.2(c),

relating to Furnishing Information about

Race, Religion, Sex or National Origin.

The proposed revision stated that

furnishing permissible information

about the nationalities of directors or

corporate officers would not violate

§ 760.2(c) but ‘‘would violate

§ 760.2(d)—the prohibition on

furnishing information about business

relationships.’’ Two commenters

pointed out that the proposed revision

to example (vii) is in conflict with other

provisions of the regulations and with

the Act’s legislative history.

One of the two commenters further

contended that furnishing information

on the nationality of officers, directors,

or employees should be presumed to be

normal commercial information sought

for legitimate business purposes, unless

there are reasons or facts available to the

exporter indicating otherwise.

Information sought about an

employment relationship should not be

considered to be information about a

business relationship as that term is

commonly understood.

The final rule makes no change to

example (vii) because the Department

has concluded after ten years of

additional experience that furnishing

information concerning nationalities of

officers, directors, or employees has not

been confused with violations of

§ 760.2(d), furnishing information about

business relationships.

The Shipping Requirement Exception to

Refusals To Use Blacklisted Vessels

The proposed rule added example (vi)

to § 760.3(b) relating to Examples of

Compliance with the Shipping

Requirements of a Boycotting Country.

The Department received no comments

on example (vi), and the final rule

adopts this example.

Import and Shipping Document

Exception to Information About the

Nationality of Carriers and Residence

of Manufacturers or Suppliers

The proposed rule revised

subparagraphs (ii), (iv), and (v) of the

text of § 760.3(c)(1) by adding a

reference to the ‘‘nationality’’ of the

carrier, and a reference to the

‘‘residence’’ of the supplier of the

shipment and the provider of other

services, with respect to compliance

with import and shipping document

requirements. No comments were

received on these revisions. The final

rule adopts the proposed revision to

subparagraph (ii), and adds the word

‘‘address’’ to subparagraphs (iv) and (v).

The Department believes that ‘‘address’’

is a more commonly used term than

‘‘residence’’ in import and shipping

documents.

One commenter suggested that

§ 760.3(c)(2) be revised to provide that

not only the names, but the

nationalities, ‘‘of carriers or routes of

shipments’’ may be stated ‘‘in negative

terms in conjunction with shipments to

a boycotting country. . . .’’ The final

rule adopts this suggestion. The

Department has long taken the position

that furnishing information about the

nationality of a carrier may be supplied

in negative terms. This information

relates to requirements protecting

against war risks or confiscation.

Although the Export Administration

Act (EAA) expired on August 20, 1994,

the President invoked the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act and

continued in effect the EAR, and to the

extent permitted by law, the provisions

of the EAA, as amended, in Executive

Order 12924 of August 19, 1994, as

extended by the President’s notices of

August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42767), August

14, 1996 (61 FR 42527), August 13, 1997

(62 FR 43629), August 13, 1998 (63 FR

44121) and August 13, 1999 (64 FR

44101).

Rule Making Requirements

1. This final rule has been determined

to be not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, no person is required

to respond to nor be subject to a penalty

for failure to comply with a collection

of information, subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, unless that collection of

information displays a current valid

OMB Control Number. This rule

involves collection of information

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This

collection has been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget under

control number 0694–0012. There are

neither additions nor subtractions to

this collection due to this rule.

3. This rule does not contain policies

with Federalism implications sufficient

to warrant preparation of a Federalism

assessment under Executive Order

13132.

4. The provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553) requiring notice of proposed

rulemaking, the opportunity for public

participation, and a delay in effective

date, are inapplicable because this

regulation involves a military and

foreign affairs function of the United

States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no

other law requires that a notice of

proposed rulemaking and an

opportunity for public comment be

given for this final rule. Because a

notice of proposed rulemaking and an

opportunity for public comment are not

required to be given for this rule under

the Administrative Procedure Act or by

any other law, the analytical

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are

not applicable. Therefore, this

regulation is issued in final form.

Although there is no formal comment

period, public comments on this

regulation are welcome on a continuing

basis. Comments should be submitted to

Kirsten Mortimer, Office of Exporter

Services, Bureau of Export

Administration, Department of

Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington,

D.C. 20044.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 760

Boycotts, Exports, Foreign trade,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, part 760 of the Export

Administration Regulations (15 CFR

Parts 730 through 799) is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 15 CFR

Part 760 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 12924, 59 FR 43437,

3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 917; Notice of August

10, 1999, 64 FR 44101, 3 CFR, 1999 Comp.,

p. 302.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34945

PART 760—[AMENDED]

§ 760.1 [Amended]

2. Section 760.1 is amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘of any

violation of this part’’ to read ‘‘of any

violation of any of the prohibitions

under § 760.2 ’’ in paragraph (e)(3);

b. By removing example (ix) and the

Note that follows example (x) in

paragraph (e)(7) under the heading

‘‘Examples of ‘Intent’ ’’;

c. By redesignating example (x) as

example (ix) in paragraph (e)(7) under

the heading ‘‘Examples of ‘Intent’ ’’; and

d. By revising the phrase ‘‘would

betaken’’ to read ‘‘would be taken’’ in

the newly designated example (ix) in

paragraph (e)(7) under the heading

‘‘Examples of ‘Intent’ ’’.

3. Section 760.2 is amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘see

§ 760.3(c) of this part’’ to read ‘‘see

§ 760.3(d)’’ in paragraph (a)(7);

b. By revising examples (xii), (xviii),

and (xxi) in paragraph (a)(10) under the

heading ‘‘Refusals To Do Business’’;

c. By revising examples (ii), (v), and

(vi) in paragraph (a)(10) under the

heading ‘‘Agreements To Refuse To Do

Business’’;

d. By revising example (xviii) in

paragraph (d)(5) under the heading

‘‘Examples Concerning Furnishing of

Information’’;

e. By revising example (v) in

paragraph (f)(10) under the heading

‘‘Implementation of Letters of Credit in

United States Commerce’’; and

f. By revising examples (iv), (vi), and

(x), and removing and reserving

example (vii), in paragraph (f)(10) under

the heading ‘‘Prohibition Against

Implementing Letters of Credit’’, as

follows:

§ 760.2 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(10) * * *

Refusals To Do Business

* * * * *

(xii) Company A, a U.S. oil company,

purchases drill bits from U.S. suppliers

for export to boycotting country Y. In its

purchase orders, A includes a provision

requiring the supplier to make delivery

to A’s facilities in Y and providing that

title to the goods does not pass until

delivery has been made. As is

customary under such an arrangement,

the supplier bears all risks of loss,

including loss from fire, theft, perils of

the sea, and inability to clear customs,

until title passes.

Insistence on such an arrangement

does not constitute a refusal to do

business, because this requirement is

imposed on all suppliers whether they

are blacklisted or not. (But see § 760.4

on ‘‘Evasion’’.)

* * * * *

(xviii) A, a U.S. engineering firm

under contract to construct a dam in

boycotting country Y, compiles, on a

non-boycott basis, a list of potential

heavy equipment suppliers, including

information on their qualifications and

prior experience. A then solicits bids

from the top three firms on its list—B,

C, and D—because they are the best

qualified. None of them happens to be

blacklisted. A does not solicit bids from

E, F, or G, the next three firms on the

list, one of whom is on Y’s blacklist.

A’s decision to solicit bids from only

B, C, and D, is not a refusal to do

business with any person, because the

solicited bidders were not selected for

boycott reasons.

* * * * *

(xxi) U.S. bank A receives a letter of

credit from a bank in boycotting country

Y in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The

letter of credit requires B to provide a

certification from the steamship line

that the vessel carrying the goods is

eligible to enter the ports in Y. B seeks

payment from A and meets all other

conditions of the letter of credit. A

refuses to pay B solely because B cannot

or will not provide the certification.

A has neither refused, nor required

another person to refuse, to do business

with another person pursuant to a

boycott requirement or request because

a request for a vessel eligibility

certificate to be furnished by the

steamship line is not a prohibited

condition. (See Supplement No. 1 to

this part, paragraph (I)(B), ‘‘Shipping

Certificate’’.)

* * * * *

Agreements To Refuse To Do Business

* * * * *

(ii) A, a U.S. manufacturer of

commercial refrigerators and freezers,

receives an invitation to bid from

boycotting country Y. The tender states

that the bidder must agree not to deal

with companies on Y’s blacklist. A does

not know which companies are on the

blacklist; however, A submits a bid

without taking exception to the boycott

conditions. A’s bid makes no

commitment regarding not dealing with

certain companies.

At the point when A submits its bid

without taking exception to the boycott

request in Y’s tender, A has agreed to

refuse to do business with blacklisted

persons, because the terms of Y’s tender

require A to agree to refuse to do

business.

* * * * *

(v) Same as (iv), except that the

contract contains a clause that A and its

employees will comply with the laws of

boycotting country Y, ‘‘including

boycott laws.’’

A’s agreeing, without qualification, to

comply with local boycott laws

constitutes an agreement to refuse to do

business.

(vi) Same as (v), except that A inserts

a proviso ‘‘except insofar as Y’s laws

conflict with U.S. laws,’’ or words to

that effect.

Such an agreement is not an

agreement to refuse to do business.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(5) * * *

Examples Concerning Furnishing of

Information

* * * * *

(xviii) U.S. company A is asked by

boycotting country Y to certify that it is

not the mother company, sister

company, subsidiary, or branch of any

blacklisted company, and that it is not

in any way affiliated with any

blacklisted company.

A may not furnish the certification,

because it is information about whether

A has a business relationship with

another person who is known or

believed to be restricted from having

any business relationship with or in a

boycotting country.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(10) * * *

Implementation of Letters of Credit in

United States Commerce

* * * * *

(v) A, a U.S. bank branch located

outside the United States, opens a letter

of credit which specifies a beneficiary

with a U.S. address. The letter of credit

calls for documents indicating shipment

of foreign-origin goods.

The letter of credit is presumed to be

in favor of a U.S. beneficiary but to

apply to a transaction outside U.S.

commerce, because it calls for

documents indicating shipment of

foreign-origin goods. The presumption

of non-U.S. commerce may be rebutted

by facts showing that A could

reasonably conclude that the underlying

transaction involves shipment of U.S.-

origin goods or goods from the United

States.

* * * * *

Prohibition Against Implementing

Letters of Credit

* * * * *

(iv) Same as (iii), except that U.S.

company B, based in part on

34946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

information received from U.S. bank A,

desires to obtain an amendment to the

letter of credit which would eliminate

or nullify the language in the letter of

credit which prevents A from paying or

otherwise implementing it.

Either company B or bank A may

undertake, and the other may cooperate

and assist in, this endeavor. A could

then pay or otherwise implement the

revised letter of credit, so long as the

original prohibited boycott condition is

of no force or effect.

* * * * *

(vi) Boycotting country Y orders

goods from U.S. company B. U.S. bank

A is asked to implement, for the benefit

of B, a letter of credit which contains a

clause requiring documentation that the

goods shipped are not of boycotted

country X origin.

A may not implement the letter of

credit with a prohibited condition, and

may accept only a positive certificate of

origin as satisfactory documentation.

(See § 760.3(c) on ‘‘Import and Shipping

Document Requirements.’’)

(vii) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(x) Boycotting country Y orders goods

from U.S. exporter B and requests a

foreign bank in Y to open a letter of

credit in favor of B to cover the cost.

The letter of credit contains a prohibited

boycott clause. The foreign bank asks

U.S. bank A to advise and confirm the

letter of credit. Through inadvertence, A

does not notice the prohibited clause

and confirms the letter of credit. A

thereafter notices the clause and then

refuses to honor B’s draft against the

letter of credit. B sues bank A for

payment.

A has an absolute defense against the

obligation to make payment under this

letter of credit. (Note: Examples (ix) and

(x) do not alter any other obligations or

liabilities of the parties under

appropriate law.)

* * * * *

4. Section 760.3 is amended:

a. By revising examples (i), (ii), and

(iii) in paragraph (a)(3) under the

heading ‘‘Examples of Compliance with

Import Requirements of a Boycotting

Country’’;

b. By adding example (vi) in

paragraph (b)(3) under the heading

‘‘Examples of Compliance with the

Shipping Requirements of a Boycotting

Country’’;

c. By revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (iv)

and (v);

d. By revising paragraph (c)(2)

introductory text;

e. By revising examples (i), (iv), (v),

and (vi), and by removing and reserving

example (iii), and removing example

(xiii), in paragraph (c)(2) under the

heading ‘‘Examples of Compliance With

Import and Shipping Document

Requirements’’;

f. By revising paragraph heading (d)

and paragraph (d)(1);

g. By revising the last example

heading ‘‘Examples of Discrimination

on Basis of Race, Religion, Sex or

National Origin’’ in paragraph (d)(18) to

read ‘‘Example of Discrimination on

Basis of Race, Religion, Sex or National

Origin’’;

h. By revising example (vii) in

paragraph (f)(4) under the heading

‘‘Examples of Compliance With

Immigration, Passport, Visa, or

Employment Requirements of a

Boycotting Country’’;

i. By revising examples (iv) and (vi) in

paragraph (g)(3) under the heading

‘‘Examples of Bona Fide Residency’’;

j. By revising paragraph (i)(4);

k. By revising the example heading

‘‘Imports for U.S. Person’s Own Use’’ in

paragraph (i)(10) to read ‘‘Imports for

U.S. Person’s Own Use Within

Boycotting Country’’; and

l. By removing the example heading

‘‘For Use Within Boycotting Country’’ in

paragraph (i)(10) and by designating the

example following this newly removed

heading as (xii), as follows:

§ 760.3 Exceptions to prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

Examples of Compliance With Import

Requirements of a Boycotting Country

(i) A, a U.S. manufacturer, receives an

order from boycotting country Y for its

products. Country X is boycotted by

country Y, and the import laws of Y

prohibit the importation of goods

produced or manufactured in X. In

filling this type of order, A would

usually include some component parts

produced in X.

For the purpose of filling this order,

A may substitute comparable

component parts in place of parts

produced in X, because the import laws

of Y prohibit the importation of goods

manufactured in X.

(ii) Same as (i), except that A’s

contract with Y expressly provides that

in fulfilling the contract A ‘‘may not

include parts or components produced

or manufactured in boycotted country

X.’’

A may agree to and comply with this

contract provision, because Y prohibits

the importation of goods from X.

However, A may not furnish negative

certifications regarding the origin of

components in response to import and

shipping document requirements.

(iii) A, a U.S. building contractor, is

awarded a contract to construct a plant

in boycotting country Y. A accepts bids

on goods required under the contract,

and the lowest bid is made by B, a

business concern organized under the

laws of X, a country boycotted by Y. Y

prohibits the import of goods produced

by companies organized under the laws

of X.

For purposes of this contract, A may

reject B’s bid and accept another,

because B’s goods would be refused

entry into Y because of Y’s boycott

against X.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

Examples of Compliance With the

Shipping Requirements of a Boycotting

Country

* * * * *

(vi) Boycotting country Y orders

goods from A, a U.S. manufacturer. The

order specifies that goods shipped by A

‘‘must not be shipped on vessels

blacklisted by country Y’’.

A may not agree to comply with this

condition because it is not a restriction

limited to the use of carriers of the

boycotted country.

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) The name and nationality of the

carrier;

(iii) * * *

(iv) The name, residence, or address

of the supplier of the shipment;

(v) The name, residence, or address of

the provider of other services.

(2) Such information must be stated in

positive, non-blacklisting, nonexclusionary terms except for

information with respect to the names

or nationalities of carriers or routes of

shipment, which may continue to be

stated in negative terms in conjunction

with shipments to a boycotting country,

in order to comply with precautionary

requirements protecting against war

risks or confiscation.

Examples of Compliance With Import

and Shipping Document Requirements

(i) Boycotting country Y contracts

with A, a U.S. petroleum equipment

manufacturer, for certain equipment. Y

requires that goods being imported into

Y must be accompanied by a

certification that the goods being

supplied did not originate in boycotted

country X.

A may not supply such a certification

in negative terms but may identify

instead the country of origin of the

goods in positive terms only.

* * * * *

(iii) [Reserved]

(iv) A, a U.S. apparel manufacturer,

has contracted to sell certain of its

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34947

products to B, a national of boycotting

country Y. The form that must be

submitted to customs officials of Y

requires the shipper to certify that the

goods contained in the shipment have

not been supplied by ‘‘blacklisted’’

persons.

A may not furnish the information in

negative terms but may certify, in

positive terms only, the name of the

supplier of the goods.

(v) Same as (iv), except the customs

form requires certification that the

insurer and freight forwarder used are

not ‘‘blacklisted.’’

A may not comply with the request

but may supply a certification stating, in

positive terms only, the names of the

insurer and freight forwarder.

(vi) A, a U.S. petrochemical

manufacturer, executes a sales contract

with B, a resident of boycotting country

Y. A provision of A’s contract with B

requires that the bill of lading and other

shipping documents contain

certifications that the goods have not

been shipped on a ‘‘blacklisted’’ carrier.

A may not agree to supply a

certification that the carrier is not

‘‘blacklisted’’ but may certify the name

of the carrier in positive terms only.

* * * * *

(d) Unilateral and specific selection.

Compliance with Unilateral and

Specific Selection

(1) A United States person may

comply or agree to comply in the

normal course of business with the

unilateral and specific selection by a

boycotting country, a national of a

boycotting country, or a resident of a

boycotting country (including a United

States person who is a bona fide

resident of a boycotting country) of

carriers, insurers, suppliers of services

to be performed within the boycotting

country, or specific goods, provided that

with respect to services, it is necessary

and customary that a not insignificant

part of the services be performed within

the boycotting country. With respect to

goods, the items, in the normal course

of business, must be identifiable as to

their source or origin at the time of their

entry into the boycotting country by (a)

uniqueness of design or appearance or

(b) trademark, trade name, or other

identification normally on the items

themselves, including their packaging.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(4) * * *

(vii) A, a U.S. contractor, selects U.S.

subcontractor B to perform certain

engineering services in connection with

A’s project in boycotting country Y. The

work visa application submitted by the

employee whom B has proposed as

chief engineer of this project is rejected

by Y because his national origin is of

boycotted country X. Subcontractor B

thereupon withdraws.

A may continue with the project and

select another subcontractor, because A

is not acting in contravention of any

prohibition of this part.

(g) * * *

(3) * * *

Examples of Bona Fide Residency

* * * * *

(iv) Same as (iii), except A’s personnel

are required by Y’s laws to furnish

certain non-discriminatory boycott

information in order to establish a

branch in Y.

In these limited circumstances, A’s

personnel may furnish the nondiscriminatory boycott information

necessary to establish residency to the

same extent a U.S. person who is a bona

fide resident in that country could. If

this information could not be furnished

in such limited circumstances, the

exception would be available only to

firms resident in a boycotting country

before January 18, 1978.

* * * * *

(vi) Same as (v), except that A is

considering establishing an office in

boycotting country Y. A’s personnel

visit Y in order to register A to do

business in that country. A intends to

establish ongoing construction

operations in Y. A’s personnel are

required by Y’s laws to furnish certain

non-discriminatory boycott information

in order to register A to do business or

incorporate a subsidiary in Y.

In these limited circumstances, A’s

personnel may furnish nondiscriminatory boycott information

necessary to establish residency to the

same extent a U.S. person who is a bona

fide resident in that country could. If

this information could not be furnished

in such limited circumstances, the

exception would be available only to

firms resident in a boycotting country

before January 18, 1978.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(4) For purposes of this exception, the

test that governs whether goods or

components of goods are specifically

identifiable is identical to the test

applied in paragraph (d) of this section

on ‘‘Compliance With Unilateral and

Specific Selection’’ to determine

whether they are identifiable as to their

source or origin in the normal course of

business.

* * * * *

5. Section 760.4 is amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘§ 760.3(a)

through (g) of this part’’ to read

‘‘§ 760.3(a) through (i)’’ in paragraph (b);

b. By revising the phrase ‘‘January 21,

1978’’ to read ‘‘January 18, 1978’’ in

paragraph (d); and

c. By revising examples (iii), (iv), (x),

(xi), (xii), (xv), and (xvi) in paragraph (e)

under the heading ‘‘Examples’’, as

follows:

§ 760.4 Evasion.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Examples

* * * * *

(iii) A, a U.S. company, has been

selling sewing machines to boycotting

country Y for a number of years. A

receives a request for a negative

certificate of origin from a new

customer. A is aware that furnishing

such certificates are prohibited;

therefore, A arranges to have all future

shipments run through a foreign

corporation in a third country which

will affix the necessary negative

certificate before forwarding the

machines on to Y.

A’s action constitutes evasion of this

part, because it is a device to mask

prohibited activity carried out on A’s

behalf.

(iv) A, a U.S. company, has been

selling calculators to distributor B in

country C for a number of years and

routinely supplies positive certificates

of origin. A receives an order from

country Y which requires negative

certificates of origin. A arranges to make

all future sales to distributor B in

country C. A knows B will step in and

make the sales to Y which A would

otherwise have made directly. B will

make the necessary negative

certifications. A’s warranty, which it

will continue to honor, runs to the

purchaser in Y.

A’s action constitutes evasion,

because the diverting of orders to B is

a device to mask prohibited activity

carried out on A’s behalf.

* * * * *

(x) Same as (ix), except that shortly

after January 18, 1978, A, a U.S.

company, insists that its suppliers sign

contracts which provide that even after

title passes from the supplier to A, the

supplier will bear the risk of loss and

indemnify A if goods which the

supplier has furnished are denied entry

into Y for boycott reasons.

A’s action constitutes evasion of this

part, because it is a device or scheme

which is intended to place a special

burden on blacklisted persons because

of Y’s boycott.

34948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(xi) Same as (x), except that A

customarily insisted on such an

arrangement with its supplier prior to

January 18, 1978.

A’s action is presumed not to

constitute evasion, because use of this

contractual arrangement was customary

for A prior to January 18, 1978.

(xii) A, a U.S. company, has a contract

to supply automobile sub-assembly

units to boycotting country Y. Shortly

after January 18, 1978, A insists that its

suppliers sign contracts which provide

that even after title passes to A, the

supplier will bear the risk of loss and

indemnify A if goods which the

supplier has furnished are denied entry

into boycotting country Y for any

reason.

A’s insistence on this arrangement is

presumed to constitute evasion, because

it is a device which is intended to place

a special burden on blacklisted firms

because of Y’s boycott. The presumption

may be rebutted by competent evidence

showing that use of such an

arrangement is customary without

regard to the boycotting or nonboycotting character of the country to

which it relates and that there is a

legitimate non-boycott business reason

for its use.

* * * * *

(xv) U.S. bank A is contacted by U.S.

company B to finance B’s transaction

with boycotting country Y. Payment

will be effected through a letter of credit

in favor of B at its U.S. address. A

knows that the letter of credit will

contain restrictive boycott conditions

which would bar its implementation by

A if the beneficiary were a U.S. person.

A advises B of the boycott condition and

suggests to B that the beneficiary should

be changed to C, a shell corporation in

non-boycotting country M. The

beneficiary is changed accordingly.

The actions of both A and B constitute

evasion of this part, because the

arrangement is a device to mask

prohibited activities.

(xvi) Same as (xv), except that U.S.

company B, the beneficiary of the letter

of credit, arranges to change the

beneficiary to B’s foreign subsidiary so

that A can implement the letter of

credit. A knows that this has been done.

A’s implementation of the letter of

credit in the face of its knowledge of B’s

action constitutes evasion of this part,

because A’s action is part of a device to

mask prohibited activity by both parties.

* * * * *

6. Section 760.5 is amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘Room

6099C’’ in paragraph (b)(4) to read

‘‘Room 6098’’;

b. By revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and

(b)(4)(ii); and

c. By revising examples (xxix), (xxx),

(xxxiv), and (xxxv) in paragraph (c)(4)

under the heading ‘‘Examples’’, to read

as follows:

§ 760.5 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) * * *

(i) Where the person receiving the

request is a United States person located

in the United States, each report of

requests must be postmarked by the last

day of the month following the calendar

quarter in which the request was

received (e.g., April 30 for the quarter

consisting of January, February, and

March).

(ii) Where the person receiving the

request is a United States person located

outside the United States, each report of

requests must be postmarked by the last

day of the second month following the

calendar quarter in which the request

was received (e.g., May 31 for the

quarter consisting of January, February,

and March).

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) * * *

Examples

* * * * *

(xxix) A, a U.S. manufacturer, is

engaged from time-to-time in supplying

drilling rigs to company B in boycotting

country Y. B insists that its suppliers

sign contracts which provide that, even

after title passes from the supplier to B,

the supplier will bear the risk of loss

and indemnify B if goods which the

supplier has furnished are denied entry

into Y for whatever reason. A knows or

has reason to know that this contractual

provision is required by B because of

Y’s boycott, and that B has been using

the provision since 1977. A receives an

order from B which contains such a

clause.

B’s request is not reportable by A,

because the request is deemed to be not

reportable by these regulations if the

provision was in use by B prior to

January 18, 1978.

(xxx) Same as (xxix), except that A

does not know when B began using the

provision.

Unless A receives information from B

that B introduced the term prior to

January 18, 1978, A must report receipt

of the request.

* * * * *

(xxxiv) U.S. exporter A, in shipping

goods to boycotting country Y, receives

a request from the customer in Y to state

on the bill of lading that the vessel is

allowed to enter Y’s ports. The request

further states that a certificate from the

owner or master of the vessel to that

effect is acceptable.

The request A received from his

customer in Y is not reportable because

it is a request of a type deemed to be not

reportable by these regulations. (A may

not make such a statement on the bill

of lading himself, if he knows or has

reason to know it is requested for a

boycott purpose.)

(xxxv) U.S. exporter A, in shipping

goods to boycotting country Y, receives

a request from the customer in Y to

furnish a certificate from the owner of

the vessel that the vessel is permitted to

call at Y’s ports.

The request A received from his

customer in Y is not reportable because

it is a request of a type deemed to be not

reportable by these regulations.

* * * * *

7. Supplement No. 1 to Part 760 is

amended:

a. By revising the ‘‘Interpretation’’

under the heading ‘‘B. Shipping

certificate.’’ in section ‘‘I.

Certifications’’;

b. By revising the ‘‘Interpretation’’

under the heading ‘‘C: Insurance

certificate.’’ in section ‘‘I.

Certifications’’; and

c. By revising the ‘‘Interpretation’’

under the heading ‘‘A. Contractual

clause regarding import laws of

boycotting country.’’ in section ‘‘II.

Contractual Clauses’’, as follows:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 760—

Interpretations

* * * * *

I. Certifications

* * * * *

B. Shipping certificate ***

Interpretation

It is the Department’s position that

furnishing a certificate, such as the one set

out above, stating: (1) The name of the vessel,

(2) The nationality of the vessel, and (3) The

owner of the vessel and further declaring that

the vessel: (a) Is not registered in a boycotted

country, (b) Is not owned by nationals or

residents of a boycotted country, and (c) Will

not call at or pass through a boycotted

country port enroute to its destination in a

boycotting country falls within the exception

contained in § 760.3(c) for compliance with

the import and shipping document

requirements of a boycotting country. See

§ 760.3(c) and examples (vii), (viii), and (ix)

thereunder.

It is also the Department’s position that the

owner, charterer, or master of a vessel may

certify that the vessel is ‘‘eligible’’ or

‘‘otherwise eligible’’ to enter into the ports of

a boycotting country in conformity with its

laws and regulations. Furnishing such a

statement pertaining to one’s own eligibility

offends no prohibition under this part 760.

See § 760.2(f), example (xiv).

On the other hand, where a boycott is in

force, a declaration that a vessel is ‘‘eligible’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34949

or ‘‘otherwise eligible’’ to enter the ports of

the boycotting country necessarily conveys

the information that the vessel is not

blacklisted or otherwise restricted from

having a business relationship with the

boycotting country. See § 760.3(c) examples

(vi), (xi), and (xii). Where a person other than

the vessel’s owner, charterer, or master

furnishes such a statement, that is

tantamount to his furnishing a statement that

he is not doing business with a blacklisted

person or is doing business only with nonblacklisted persons. Therefore, it is the

Department’s position that furnishing such a

certification (which does not reflect

customary international commercial practice)

by anyone other than the owner, charterer, or

master of a vessel would fall within the

prohibition set forth in § 760.2(d) unless it is

clear from all the facts and circumstances

that the certification is not required for a

boycott reason. See § 760.2(d)(3) and (4). See

also part A., ‘‘Permissible Furnishing of

Information,’’ of Supplement No. 5 to this

part.

C. Insurance certificate. * * *

Interpretation

It is the Department’s position that

furnishing the name of the insurance

company falls within the exception

contained in § 760.3(c) for compliance with

the import and shipping document

requirements of a boycotting country. See

§ 760.3(c)(1)(v) and examples (v) and (x)

thereunder. In addition, it is the

Department’s position that furnishing a

certificate, such as the one set out above,

stating the address of the insurance

company’s principal office and its country of

incorporation offends no prohibition under

this part 760 unless the U.S. person

furnishing the certificate knows or has reason

to know that the information is sought for the

purpose of determining that the insurance

company is neither headquartered nor

incorporated in a boycotted country. See

§ 760.2(d)(1)(i).

It is also the Department’s position that the

insurer, himself, may certify that he has a

duly qualified and appointed agent or

representative in the boycotting country and

may furnish the name and address of his

agent or representative. Furnishing such a

statement pertaining to one’s own status

offends no prohibition under this part 760.

See § 760.2(f), example (xiv).

On the other hand, where a boycott is in

force, a declaration that an insurer ‘‘has a

duly qualified and appointed agent or

representative’’ in the boycotting country

necessarily conveys the information that the

insurer is not blacklisted or otherwise

restricted from having a business relationship

with the boycotting country. See § 760.3(c),

example (v). Therefore, it is the Department’s

position that furnishing such a certification

by anyone other than the insurer would fall

within the prohibition set forth in § 760.2(d)

unless it is clear from all the facts and

circumstances that the certification is not

required for a boycott reason. See

§ 760.2(d)(3) and (4).

* * * * *

II. Contractual Clauses

* * * * *

A. Contractual clause regarding import

laws of boycotting country. ***

Interpretation

It is the Department’s position that an

agreement, such as the one set out in the first

sentence above, that the import and customs

requirements of a boycotting country shall

apply to the performance of a contract does

not, in and of itself, offend any prohibition

under this part 760. See § 760.2(a)(5) and

example (iii) under ‘‘Examples of Agreements

To Refuse To Do Business.’’ It is also the

Department’s position that an agreement to

comply generally with the import and

customs requirements of a boycotting country

does not, in and of itself, offend any

prohibition under this part 760. See

§ 760.2(a)(5) and examples (iv) and (v) under

‘‘Examples of Agreements To Refuse To Do

Business.’’ In addition, it is the Department’s

position that an agreement, such as the one

set out in the second sentence above, to

comply with the boycotting country’s import

and customs requirements prohibiting the

importation of products or components: (1)

Originating in the boycotted country; (2)

Manufactured, produced, or furnished by

companies organized under the laws of the

boycotted country; or (3) Manufactured,

produced, or furnished by nationals or

residents of the boycotted country falls

within the exception contained in § 760.3(a)

for compliance with the import requirements

of a boycotting country. See § 760.3(a) and

example (ii) thereunder.

The Department notes that a United States

person may not furnish a negative

certification regarding the origin of goods or

their components even though the

certification is furnished in response to the

import and shipping document requirements

of the boycotting country. See § 760.3(c) and

examples (i) and (ii) thereunder, and

§ 760.3(a) and example (ii) thereunder.

* * * * *

8. Supplement No. 2 to Part 760 is

amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘receipt of

requests for such shipping and

insurance certificates from Saudi Arabia

is not reportable’’ to read ‘‘receipts of

requests for such shipping and

insurance certificates from Saudi Arabia

are not reportable’’ in the undesignated

paragraph which begins with the phrase

‘‘On the basis of this clarification’’; and

b. By revising the phrase ‘‘receipt of

requests for such certifications is

reportable’’ to read ‘‘receipts of requests

for such certifications are reportable’’ in

the undesignated paragraph which

begins with the phrase ‘‘It is still the

Department’s position’’.

9. Supplement No. 4 to Part 760 is

amended by revising the second

undesignated paragraph as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 760—

Interpretation

* * * * *

Section 760.1(d)(12) provides the general

guidelines for determining when U.S.-origin

goods shipped from a controlled in fact

foreign subsidiary are outside U.S.

commerce. The two key tests of that

provision are that the goods were ‘‘(i) * * *

acquired without reference to a specific order

from or transaction with a person outside the

United States; and (ii) * * * further

manufactured, incorporated into, refined

into, or reprocessed into another product.’’

Because the application of these two tests to

spare parts does not conclusively answer the

U.S. commerce question, the Department is

presenting this clarification.

* * * * *

10. Supplement No. 5 to part 760 is

amended by revising the phrase

‘‘Section 760.3(f) of this part’’ to read

‘‘Section 760.3(g)’’ in the undesignated

paragraph following the heading ‘‘B.

Availability of the Compliance with

Local Law Exception to Establish a

Foreign Branch’’.

11. Supplement No. 6 to part 760 is

amended by revising paragraph (a) as

follows:

Supplement No. 6 to Part 760—

Interpretation

* * * * *

(a) * * *

This term is very common in letters

of credit from Kuwait and may also

appear from time-to-time in invitations

to bid, contracts, or other trade

documents. It imposes a condition or

requirement compliance with which is

prohibited, but permitted by an

exception under the Regulations (see

§ 760.2(a) and § 760.3(a)). It is reportable

by those parties to the letter of credit or

other transaction that are required to

take or refrain from taking some boycott

related action by the request. Thus the

bank must report the request because it

is a term or condition of the letter of

credit that it is handling, and the

exporter-beneficiary must report the

request because the exporter determines

the origin of the goods. The freight

forwarder does not have to report this

request because the forwarder has no

role or obligation in selecting the goods.

However, the freight forwarder would

have to report a request to furnish a

certificate that the goods do not

originate in or contain components from

a boycotted country. See § 760.5,

examples (xii)–(xvii).

* * * * *

12. Supplement No. 7 to part 760 is

amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘§ 760.3(c) of

this part’’ to read ‘‘§ 760.3(d)’’ in the

second undesignated paragraph; and

b. By revising the third undesignated

paragraph as follows:

Supplement No. 7 to Part 760—

Interpretation

* * * * *

34950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘A United States person may comply or

agree to comply in the normal course of

business with the unilateral and specific

selection by a boycotting country * * * of

* * * specific goods, * * * provided that

* * * with respect to goods, the items, in the

normal course of business, are identifiable as

to their source or origin at the time of their

entry into the boycotting country by (a)

uniqueness of design or appearance or (b)

trademark, trade name, or other identification

normally on the items themselves, including

their packaging.’’

* * * * *

13. Supplement No. 8 to part 760 is

amended by revising the phrase

‘‘§ 760.1(d)(13) of this part’’ to read

‘‘§ 760.1(d)(3)’’ in the third

undesignated paragraph.

14. Supplement No. 9 to part 760 is

amended by revising the phrase

‘‘§ 760.3(f) of this part’’ to read

‘‘§ 760.3(g)’’ the first undesignated

paragraph.

15. Supplement No. 10 to part 760 is

amended by revising the phrase ‘‘non

exclusionary, non blacklisting

statement’’ to read ‘‘non-exclusionary,

non-blacklisting statement’’ in the

undesignated paragraph that follows

paragraph heading (b).

16. Supplement No. 11 to part 760 is

amended:

a. By placing quotation marks around

the undesignated paragraph that follows

the phrase ‘‘§ 760.5(a)(4) of this part

status in part’’; and

b. By revising the parenthetical phrase

‘‘(§ 760.5(a)(6) of this part)’’ to read

‘‘(§ 760.5(b)(6)’’ in the last undesignated

paragraph.

17. Supplement No. 12 to part 760 is

amended:

a. By placing beginning and ending

quotation marks around the first and

second undesignated paragraphs,

respectively, that follow the phrase

‘‘Example (v) under § 760.4 of this part

(Evasion) provides:’’

b. By revising the phrase ‘‘recently

imposed by the government’’ to read

‘‘imposed by the government’’ in the

undesignated paragraph that begins

with the phrase ‘‘This interpretation

deals with’’; and

c. By placing quotation marks around

the undesignated paragraph that begins

with the phrase ‘‘Declaration: I, the

undersigned’’.

18. Supplement No. 13 to part 760 is

amended:

a. By revising the phrase ‘‘§ 760.3(c) of

this part’’ to read ‘‘§ 760.3(d)’’ in the

undesignated paragraph following the

heading ‘‘Summary’’;

b. By placing quotation marks around

the third undesignated paragraph

following the heading ‘‘Regulatory

Background’’;

c. By revising the phrase ‘‘§ 760.3(c)’’

part’’ to read ‘‘§ 760.3(d)’’ in the fourth

undesignated paragraph following the

heading ‘‘Regulatory Background’’;

d. By revising the heading ‘‘Analysis

of the New Contractual Language’’ to

read ‘‘Analysis of Additional

Contractual Language’’;

e. By revising the phrase ‘‘of a new

contractual clause’’ to read ‘‘of a

contractual clause’’ in the undesignated

paragraph following the newly revised

heading ‘‘Analysis of the New

Contractual Language’’;

f. By revising the heading ‘‘Boycott of

Boycotted Country’’ to read ‘‘Boycott of

[Name of Boycotted Country]’’;

g. By revising the phrase ‘‘§ 760.3(c) of

this part’’ to read ‘‘§ 760.3(d)’’ in the last

undesignated paragraph of this

supplement.

19. Supplement No. 14 to part 760 is

amended:

a. By placing beginning and ending

quotation marks around the first and

second undesignated paragraphs,

respectively, following the sentence

‘‘The following language has appeared

in tender documents issued by a

boycotting country:’’ in paragraph (a);

b. By revising the phrase ‘‘Agreement

to Refuse to Do Business’’ to read

‘‘Agreements to Refuse to Do Business’’

in the last sentence of the third

undesignated paragraph following the

sentence ‘‘The following language has

appeared in tender documents issued by

a boycotting country:’’ in paragraph (a);

c. By revising the phrase

‘‘§ 760.6(a)(1) of this part’’ to read

‘‘§ 760.5(a)(1) of this part’’ in the last

undesignated paragraph following the

sentence ‘‘The following language has

appeared in tender documents issued by

a boycotting country:’’ in paragraph (a);

and

d. By placing beginning and ending

quotation marks around the first and

second undesignated paragraphs,

respectively, that follow the sentence

‘‘The following terms frequently appear

on letters of credit covering shipment to

Iraq:’’ in paragraph (b).

Dated: May 18, 2000.

R. Roger Majak,

Assistant Secretary for Export

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13251 Filed 5–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

[Regulations Nos. 4 and 16]

RIN 0960–AD91

Federal Old-Age, Survivors and

Disability Insurance and Supplemental

Security Income for the Aged, Blind,

and Disabled; Medical and Other

Evidence of Your Impairment(s) and

Definition of Medical Consultant

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: We are revising the Social

Security and Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) disability regulations

regarding sources of evidence for

establishing the existence of a medically

determinable impairment under title II

and title XVI of the Social Security Act

(the Act). We are doing this to clarify

and expand the list of acceptable

medical sources and to revise the

definition of the term ‘‘medical

consultant’’ to include additional

acceptable medical sources.

DATES: These rules are effective July 3,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Georgia E. Myers, Regulations Officer,

Social Security Administration, 6401

Security Boulevard, Baltimore,

Maryland 21235–6401, 1–410–965–3632

or TTY 1–800–966–5609. For

information about eligibility or filing for

benefits, call our national toll-free

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–

800–325–0778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act

provides, in title II, for the payment of

disability benefits to persons insured

under the Act. Title II also provides,

under certain circumstances, for the

payment of child’s insurance benefits

based on disability and widow’s and

widower’s insurance benefits for

disabled widows, widowers, and

surviving divorced spouses of insured

persons. In addition, the Act provides,

in title XVI, for SSI payments to persons

who are aged, blind, or disabled and

who have limited income and resources.

For adults under both the title II and

title XVI programs (including persons

claiming child’s insurance benefits

based on disability under title II),

‘‘disability’’ means the inability to

engage in any substantial gainful

activity. For an individual under age 18

claiming SSI benefits based on

disability, ‘‘disability’’ means that an

impairment(s) causes ‘‘marked and

severe functional limitations.’’ (Our

regulations at § 416.902 explain that,

‘‘[m]arked and severe functional