### 54623 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2013 / Notices

from the ‘‘redesigned’’ ASEC. This splitdesign will enable Census Bureau analysts to create a ‘‘cross-walk’’ when analyzing the effects of the redesigned ASEC on income and poverty estimates.

The U.S. Census Bureau continues to follow the 1999 mandate from Congress regarding passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or Title XXI. The mandate increased the sample size for the CPS, and specifically the ASEC, to a level achieving estimates that are more reliable for the number of individuals participating in this program at the state level. Since 2000, the ASEC is conducted in February, March, and April, rather than only in March, to achieve the increase in sample size.

II. Method of Collection

The ASEC information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular February, March and April CPS interviewing. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

III. Data

OMB Control Number: 0607–0354. Form Number: There are no forms. We conduct all interviewing on computers.

Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 78,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 32,500.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There are no costs to the respondents other than their time to answer the CPS questions.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1–9. IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (A) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (B) The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (C) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (D) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Dated: August 29, 2013. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2013–21538 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3510–07–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**Foreign-Trade Zones Board**

**[B–81–2013]**

**Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7— Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of**  **Proposed Production Activity; Puma Energy Caribe, LLC (Biodiesel**  **Blending); Bayamon, Puerto Rico**

Puma Energy Caribe, LLC (Puma Energy) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Bayamon, Puerto Rico within Subzone 7F. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 26, 2013.

Puma Energy already has authority to conduct certain standard refinery operations involving crude oil and petroleum products within Subzone 7F. The current request would add the blending of biodiesel to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Puma Energy from customs duty payments on the foreign status component used in export production. On its domestic sales, Puma Energy would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to renewable diesel blends (duty rate—10.5¢/barrel) for the foreign status inputs noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

The component sourced from abroad is: Fatty acid methyl ester meeting the specification of biodiesel (B100) (duty rate—4.6%).

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 15, 2013.

A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202)

482–0473.

Dated: August 27, 2013. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–21638 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**Bureau of Industry and Security**

**[Docket No. 130823751–3751–01]**

**Effects of Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls** 

**AGENCY :**  Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

**ACTION :**  Request for comments.

**SUMMARY :**  BIS is seeking public comments on the effect of existing foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations. BIS is requesting public comments to conduct consultations with U.S. industries. Section 6 of the Export Administration Act (EAA) requires BIS to consult with industry on the effect of such controls and to report the results of the consultations to Congress. Comments from all interested persons are welcome. All comments will be made available for public inspection and copying and included in a report to be submitted to Congress.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received by October 7, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Comments on this rule maybe submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov ). The regulations.gov ID for this rule is: BIS– 2013–0019. Comments may also be sent by email to publiccomments@ bis.doc.gov or on paper to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2099B, Washington, DC 20230. Include the phrase ‘‘FPBEC


### 54624 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2013 / Notices

Comment’’ in the subject line of the email message or on the envelope if submitting comments on paper. All comments must be in writing (either submitted to regulations.gov, by email or on paper). All comments, including personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter, will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Tracy L. Patts, Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation Controls and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, telephone 202–482–6389. The current Annual Foreign Policy Report to the Congress is available at http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/about-bis/newsroom/archives/27-aboutbis/502-foreign-policy-reports, and copies may also be requested by calling the Office of Nonproliferation Controls and Treaty Compliance at the number listed above.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Foreign policy-based controls in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are implemented pursuant to section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401– 2420 (2000)) (EAA). The current foreign policy-based export controls maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) are set forth in the EAR (15 CFR parts 730–774), including in parts 742 (CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use Based Controls) and 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls). These controls apply to a range of countries, items, activities and persons, including:

• Entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States (§ 744.11);

• Certain general purpose microprocessors for ‘‘military end-uses’’ and ‘‘military end-users’’ (§ 744.17);

• Significant items (SI);

• Hot section technology for the development, production, or overhaul of commercial aircraft engines, components, and systems (§ 742.14);

• Encryption items (§ 742.15);

• Crime control and detection items (§ 742.7);

• Specially designed implements of torture (§ 742.11);

• Certain firearms and related items based on the Organization of American States Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Munitions included within the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (§ 742.17);

• Regional stability items (§ 742.6);

• Equipment and related technical data used in the design, development, production, or use of certain rocket systems and unmanned air vehicles (§§ 742.5 and 744.3);

• Chemical precursors and biological agents, associated equipment, technical data, and software related to the production of chemical and biological agents (§§ 742.2 and 744.4) and various chemicals included on the list of those chemicals controlled pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (§ 742.18);

• Communication intercepting devices, software and technology (§ 742.13);

• Nuclear propulsion (§ 744.5);

• Aircraft and vessels (§ 744.7);

• Restrictions on exports and reexports to certain persons designated as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (§ 744.8);

• Certain cameras to be used by military end-users or incorporated into a military commodity (§ 744.9);

• Countries designated as Supporters of Acts of International Terrorism (§§ 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19, 746.2, 746.4, 746.7, and 746.9);

• Certain entities in Russia (§ 744.10);

• Individual terrorists and terrorist organizations (§§ 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14);

• Certain persons designated by Executive Order 13315 (‘‘Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials and Their Family Members’’) (§ 744.18);

• Certain sanctioned entities (§ 744.20);

• Embargoed countries (Part 746); and

• U.N. arms embargoes (§ 746.1). In addition, the EAR impose foreign policy-based export controls on certain nuclear-related commodities, technology, end-uses and end-users (§§ 742.3 and 744.2), in part, implementing section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 2139a).

Under the provisions of section 6 of the EAA, export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension. Section 6 of the EAA requires a report to Congress when foreign policy-based export controls are extended. The EAA expired on August 20, 2001. 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), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 8, 2013 (78 FR 49105 (Aug. 12, 2013)), continues the EAR and, to the extent permitted by law, the provisions of the EAA, in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. (2000) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). The Department of Commerce, as appropriate, follows the provisions of section 6 of the EAA by reviewing its foreign policy-based export controls, conducting consultations with industry through public comments on such controls, and preparing a report to be submitted to Congress. In January 2013, the Secretary of Commerce, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, extended for one year all foreign policy-based export controls then in effect. BIS is now soliciting public comment on the effects of extending the existing foreign policy-based export controls from January 2014 to January 2015. Among the criteria considered in determining whether to extend U.S. foreign policy-based export controls are the following:

1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;

2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;

3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with the overall U.S. policy toward the country subject to the controls;

4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy interests;

5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and

6. The ability of the United States to effectively enforce the controls.

BIS is particularly interested in receiving comments on the economic impact of proliferation controls. BIS is also interested in industry information relating to the following:

1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those countries not targeted by


### 54625 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2013 / Notices

1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 78 FR 25423 (May 1, 2013).

2 Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC (collectively, Petitioners).

3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and

Continued sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospectivecustomers regarding U.S. foreign policybased export controls.

2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?

3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).

4. Suggestions for bringing foreign policy-based export controls more into line with multilateral practice.

5. Comments or suggestions to make multilateral controls more effective.

6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.

7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial sectors.

8. Suggestions for measuring the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade.

9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.

Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received before the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in reviewing the controls and in developing the report to Congress. All comments received in response to this notice will be displayed on BIS’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ and on the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at www.Regulations.gov. All comments will also be included in a report to Congress, as required by section 6 of the EAA, which directs that BIS report to Congress the results of its consultations with industry on the effects of foreign policy-based controls.

Dated: August 28, 2013. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

[FR Doc. 2013–21577 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3510–33–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE** 

**International Trade Administration**

**Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, et al.: Notice of Consolidated Decision**  **on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope** 

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

Docket Number: 13–016. Applicant: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR 34990, June 11, 2013.

Docket Number: 13–018. Applicant: The Scripps Institute, La Jolla, CA

92037. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR 34990, June 11, 2013.

Docket Number: 13–021. Applicant: University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR 37206–07, June 20, 2013.

Docket Number: 13–022. Applicant: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

84132. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR 34990–91, June 11, 2013.

Docket Number: 13–024. Applicant: University of Pennsylvania, Biomedical Research Building, Philadelphia, PA

19104. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR 34990–91, June 11, 2013.

Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument. Dated: August 27, 2013. Richard Herring, Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 2013–21641 Filed 9–4–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**International Trade Administration**

**[C–570–938]**

**Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People’s Republic of China:**  **Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative**  **Review**

**AGENCY :**  Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: September 5,
2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Patricia M. Tran or Raquel Silva, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1503 or (202) 482– 6475, respectively.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

On May 1, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on citric acid and certain citrate salts from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. 1 The Department received a timely request for a CVD administrative review from Petitioners 2 for RZBC Group Co., Ltd., RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively, RZBC). The Department also received timely requests from RZBC and Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. (Laiwu) for a CVD administrative review of themselves. On June 28, 2013, the Department published the notice of initiation of this CVD administrative review with respect to the two companies. 3 On July 31, 2013, Laiwu