Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11863 

(c) Bombardier must perform an 

analysis to show that the design, 

manufacturing processes, and the 

airworthiness limitations section of the 

instructions for continued airworthiness 

include all practical measures to 

prevent, and detect and correct, failures 

of structural lightning protection 

features due to manufacturing 

variability, aging, wear, corrosion, and 

likely damage. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

25, 2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05047 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 748 

[Docket No. 150206120–5120–01] 

RIN 0694–AG50 

Amendments to Existing Validated 

End-User Authorization in the People’s 

Republic of China: Samsung China 

Semiconductor Co. Ltd. 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) amends the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) to revise the existing 

authorization for Validated End User 

Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd. 

(Samsung China) in the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). Specifically, 

BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 

748 of the EAR to add two items to 

Samsung China’s eligible items that may 

be exported, reexported or transferred 

(in country) to the company’s eligible 

facilities (also known as ‘‘eligible 

destinations’’) in the PRC. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 5, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MiYong Kim, Chair, End-User Review 

Committee, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary, Export Administration, 

Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Phone: 202– 

482-5991; Fax: 202–482–3911; Email: 

ERC@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Authorization Validated End-User 

Validated End-Users (VEUs) are 

designated entities located in eligible 

destinations to which eligible items may 

be exported, reexported, or transferred 

(in-country) under a general 

authorization instead of a license. The 

names of the VEUs, as well as the dates 

they were so designated, and their 

respective eligible destinations and 

items are identified in Supplement No. 

7 to Part 748 of the EAR. Under the 

terms described in that supplement, 

VEUs may obtain eligible items without 

an export license from BIS, in 

conformity with Section 748.15 of the 

EAR. Eligible items vary between VEUs 

and may include commodities, software, 

and technology, except those controlled 

for missile technology or crime control 

reasons on the Commerce Control List 

(CCL) (part 774 of the EAR). 

VEUs are reviewed and approved by 

the U.S. Government in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 748.15 and 

Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to Part 748 of 

the EAR. The End-User Review 

Committee (ERC), composed of 

representatives from the Departments of 

State, Defense, Energy, and Commerce, 

and other agencies, as appropriate, is 

responsible for administering the VEU 

program. BIS amended the EAR in a 

final rule published on June 19, 2007 

(72 FR 33646) to create Authorization 

VEU. 

Amendment to Existing VEU 

Authorization for Samsung China 

Semiconductor Co. Ltd (Samsung 

China) in the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) 

Revision to the List of ‘‘Eligible Items (by 

ECCN)’’ for Samsung China 

In this final rule, BIS amends 

Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 to add 

two Export Control Classification 

Numbers (ECCNs), 2B006.a and 

2B006.b.1.d, to the list of items that may 

be exported, reexported or transferred 

(in-country) to Samsung China’s facility 

in the PRC under Authorization VEU. 

The revised list of eligible items for 

Samsung China is as follows: 

Eligible Items (by ECCN) That May Be 

Exported, Reexported or Transferred 

(In-Country) to the Eligible Destination 

Identified Under Samsung China 

Semiconductor Co. Ltd.’s Validated 

End-User Authorization 

1C350.c.3, 1C350.d.7, 2B006.a, 

2B006.b.1.d, 2B230, 2B350.d.2, 

2B350.g.3, 2B350.i.3, 3A233, 3B001.a.1, 

3B001.b, 3B001.c, 3B001.e, 3B001.f, 

3B001.h, 3C002, 3C004, 3D002, and 

3E001 (limited to ‘‘technology’’ for 

items classified under 3C002 and 3C004 

and ‘‘technology’’ for use consistent 

with the International Technology 

Roadmap for Semiconductors process 

for items classified under ECCNs 3B001 

and 3B002). 

Export Administration Act 

Since August 21, 2001, the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended, has been in lapse. However, 

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, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014) 

has continued the EAR in effect under 

the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). 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 not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

2. This rule involves collections 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Control Number 0694–0088, ‘‘MultiPurpose Application,’’ which carries a 

burden hour estimate of 43.8 minutes to 

prepare and submit form BIS–748; and 

for recordkeeping, reporting and review 

requirements in connection with 

Authorization VEU, which carries an 

estimated burden of 30 minutes per 

submission. This rule is expected to 

result in a decrease in license 

applications submitted to BIS. Total 

burden hours associated with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and OMB 

Control Number 0694–0088 are not 

expected to increase significantly as a 

result of this rule. Notwithstanding any 

other provisions of law, no person is 

required to respond to, nor be subject to 

a penalty for failure to comply with a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive 

requirements that this rule be subject to 

notice and the opportunity for public 

comment because they are unnecessary. 

In determining whether to grant VEU 

designations, a committee of U.S. 

Government agencies evaluates 

information about and commitments 

made by candidate companies, the 

nature and terms of which are set forth 

in 15 CFR part 748, Supplement No. 8. 

The criteria for evaluation by the 

committee are set forth in 15 CFR 

748.15(a)(2). The information, 

commitments, and criteria for this 

extensive review were all established 

through the notice of proposed 

rulemaking and public comment 

process (71 FR 38313 (July 6, 2006) 

(proposed rule), and 72 FR 33646 (June 

19, 2007) (final rule)). Given the 

similarities between the authorizations 

provided under the VEU program and 

export licenses (as discussed further 

below), the publication of this 

information does not establish new 

policy. Publication of this rule in other 

than final form is unnecessary because 

the authorizations granted in the rule 

are consistent with the authorizations 

granted to exporters for individual 

licenses (and amendments or revisions 

thereof), which do not undergo public 

review. In addition, as with license 

applications, VEU authorization 

applications contain confidential 

business information, which is 

necessary for the extensive review 

conducted by the U.S. Government in 

assessing such applications. This 

information is extensively reviewed 

according to the criteria for VEU 

authorizations, as set out in 15 CFR 

748.15(a)(2). Additionally, just as the 

interagency reviews license 

applications, the authorizations granted 

under the VEU program involve 

interagency deliberation and result from 

review of public and non-public 

sources, including licensing data, and 

the measurement of such information 

against the VEU authorization criteria. 

Given the nature of the review, and in 

light of the parallels between the VEU 

application review process and the 

review of license applications, public 

comment on this authorization and 

subsequent amendments prior to 

publication is unnecessary. Moreover, 

because, as noted above, the criteria and 

process for authorizing and 

administering VEUs were developed 

with public comments, allowing 

additional public comment on this 

amendment to individual VEU 

authorizations, which was determined 

according to those criteria, is 

unnecessary. 

Section 553(d) of the APA generally 

provides that rules may not take effect 

earlier than thirty (30) days after they 

are published in the Federal Register. 

BIS finds good cause to waive the 30- 

day delay in effectiveness under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because the delay 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

BIS is simply amending the 

authorization of an existing VEU by 

adding two ECCNs to the list of eligible 

items that may be sent to that VEU, 

consistent with established objectives 

and parameters administered and 

enforced by the responsible designated 

departmental representatives to the EndUser Review Committee. Delaying this 

action’s effectiveness could cause 

confusion regarding which items are 

authorized by the U.S. Government and 

in turn stifle the purpose of the VEU 

Program. Accordingly, it is contrary to 

the public interest to delay this rule’s 

effectiveness. 

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 under the APA or by any other 

law, the analytical requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) are not applicable. As a result, 

no final regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required and none has been prepared. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, part 748 of the EAR (15 

CFR parts 730–774) is amended as 

follows: 

PART 748—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 748 continues 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, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 

2014). 

■ 2. Amend Supplement No. 7 to Part 

748 by revising the entry for ‘‘Samsung 

China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.’’ in 

‘‘China (People’s Republic of)’’ to read 

as follows: 

SUPPLEMENT NO. 7 TO PART 748—AUTHORIZATION VALIDATED END–USER (VEU): LIST OF VALIDATED END–USERS, 

RESPECTIVE ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR EXPORT, REEXPORT AND TRANSFER, AND ELIGIBLE DESTINATIONS

Country Validated 

end-user 

Eligible items 

(by ECCN) Eligible destination Federal Register citation 

Nothing in this Supplement shall be deemed to supersede other provisions in the EAR, including but not limited to § 748.15(c). 

*******

Samsung China 

Semi conductor Co. Ltd.

1C350.c.3, 1C350.d.7, 2B006.a, 

2B006.b.1.d, 2B230, 2B350.d.2, 

2B350.g.3, 2B350.i.3, 3A233, 

3B001.a.1, 3B001.b, 3B001.c, 

3B001.e, 3B001.f, 3B001.h, 

3C002, 3C004, 3D002, and 

3E001 (limited to ‘‘technology’’ 

for items classified under 3C002 

and 3C004 and ‘‘technology’’ for 

use consistent with the International Technology Roadmap 

for Semiconductors process for 

items classified under ECCNs 

3B001 and 3B002).

Samsung China Semiconductor 

Co. Ltd. No. 1999, North Xiaohe 

Road Xi’an, China 710119.

78 FR 41291, 7/10/13. 78 FR 

69535, 11/20/13. 79 FR 30713, 

5/29/14. 80 FR [INSERT PAGE 

NUMBER], March 5, 2015. 

* * * * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11865 

1The regulatory provisions in this part have been 

written and organized to be consistent with other 

whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA to 

the extent possible within the bounds of the 

statutory language of Sarbanes-Oxley. 

Responsibility for receiving and investigating 

complaints under Sarbanes-Oxley has been 

delegated to the Assistant Secretary for 

Occupational Safety and Health. Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 01–2012 (Jan. 18, 2012), 77 FR 

3912 (Jan. 25, 2012). Hearings on determinations by 

the Assistant Secretary are conducted by the Office 

of Administrative Law Judges, and appeals from 

decisions by administrative law judges are decided 

by the ARB. Secretary of Labor’s Order 2–2012 (Oct. 

19, 2012), 77 FR 69378 (Nov. 16, 2012). 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05085 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 895 

Banned Devices 

CFR Correction 

In Title 21 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 800 to 1299, revised 

as of April 1, 2014, on page 594, in 

§ 895.21, remove the undesignated 

paragraph following paragraph (d)(8). 

[FR Doc. 2015–05028 Filed 3–4–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01D 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1980 

[Docket Number: OSHA–2011–0126] 

RIN 1218–AC53 

Procedures for the Handling of 

Retaliation Complaints Under Section 

806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 

as Amended 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

final text of regulations governing 

employee protection (retaliation or 

whistleblower) claims under section 806 

of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud 

Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of 

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(Sarbanes-Oxley or Act), which was 

amended by sections 922 and 929A of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (DoddFrank), enacted on July 21, 2010. An 

interim final rule (IFR) governing these 

provisions and request for comment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 3, 2011. Five comments were 

received. This rule responds to those 

comments and establishes the final 

procedures and time frames for the 

handling of retaliation complaints under 

Sarbanes-Oxley, including procedures 

and time frames for employee 

complaints to the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA), 

investigations by OSHA, appeals of 

OSHA determinations to an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) for a 

hearing de novo, hearings by ALJs, 

review of ALJ decisions by the 

Administrative Review Board (ARB) 

(acting on behalf of the Secretary of 

Labor), and judicial review of the 

Secretary of Labor’s final decision. It 

also sets forth the Secretary of Labor’s 

interpretations of the Sarbanes-Oxley 

whistleblower provision on certain 

matters. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 5, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Broecker, Directorate of 

Whistleblower Protection Programs, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–4624, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2199; email: 

OSHA.DWPP@dol.gov. This is not a tollfree number. This Federal Register 

publication is available in alternative 

formats. The alternative formats 

available are large print, electronic file 

on computer disk (Word Perfect, ASCII, 

Mates with Duxbury Braille System) and 

audiotape. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Sarbanes-Oxley was first enacted on 

July 30, 2002. Title VIII is designated as 

the Corporate and Criminal Fraud 

Accountability Act of 2002. Section 806, 

codified at 18 U.S.C. 1514A, is the 

‘‘whistleblower provision,’’ which 

provides protection to employees 

against retaliation by certain persons 

covered under the Act for engaging in 

specified protected activity. The Act 

generally was designed to protect 

investors by ensuring corporate 

responsibility, enhancing public 

disclosure, and improving the quality 

and transparency of financial reporting 

and auditing. The whistleblower 

provision is intended to protect 

employees who report fraudulent 

activity and violations of Securities 

Exchange Commission (SEC) rules and 

regulations that can harm innocent 

investors in publicly traded companies. 

Dodd-Frank amended the SarbanesOxley whistleblower provision, 18 

U.S.C. 1514A. The regulatory revisions 

described herein reflect these statutory 

amendments and also seek to clarify and 

improve OSHA’s procedures for 

handling Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower 

claims, as well as to set forth OSHA’s 

interpretations of the Act. To the extent 

possible within the bounds of 

applicable statutory language, these 

revised regulations are designed to be 

consistent with the procedures applied 

to claims under other whistleblower 

statutes administered by OSHA, 

including the Surface Transportation 

Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 29 CFR 

part 1978; the National Transit Systems 

Security Act (NTSSA) and the Federal 

Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 29 CFR part 

1982; the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 29 

CFR part 1983; the Employee Protection 

Provisions of Six Environmental 

Statutes and Section 211 of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, 29 CFR part 24; the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA), 29 CFR part 

1984; the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act (CFPA), 29 CFR part 

1985; the Seaman’s Protection Act 

(SPA), 29 CFR part 1986; and the FDA 

Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), 

29 CFR part 1987. 

II. Summary of Statutory Procedures 

and Statutory Changes to the SarbanesOxley Whistleblower Provision 

Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower 

provision, as amended by Dodd-Frank, 

includes procedures that allow a 

covered employee to file a complaint 

with the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) 1

not later than 180 days after the alleged 

retaliation or after the employee learns 

of the alleged retaliation. SarbanesOxley further provides that the rules 

and procedures set forth in the Wendell 

H. Ford Aviation Investment and 

Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR21), 49 U.S.C. 42121(b), govern in 

Sarbanes-Oxley actions. 18 U.S.C. 

1514A(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, upon 

receipt of the complaint, the Secretary 

must provide written notice to the 

person or persons named in the 

complaint alleged to have violated the 

Act (respondent) of the filing of the 

complaint, the allegations contained in 

the complaint, the substance of the 

evidence supporting the complaint, and 

the rights afforded the respondent 

throughout the investigation. The 

Secretary must then, within 60 days of 

receipt of the complaint, afford the 

respondent an opportunity to submit a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES