Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49323 

and vote on all such requests. The time 

frames, procedures and right of escalation by 

a member agency that is dissatisfied with the 

results that apply to proposals made by a 

member agency shall apply to these requests. 

The decision of the ERC (or the ACEP or 

EARB or the President, as may be applicable 

in a particular case) shall be the final agency 

decision on the request and shall not be 

appealable under part 756 of the EAR. The 

chairman will prepare the response to the 

party who made the request. The response 

will state the decision on the request and the 

fact that the response is the final agency 

decision on the request. The response will be 

signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Export Administration. 

The End-User Review Committee will 

conduct a review of the entire Entity List at 

least once per year for the purpose of 

determining whether any listed entities 

should be removed or modified. The review 

will include analysis of whether the criteria 

for listing the entity are still applicable and 

research to determine whether the name(s) 

and address(es) of each entity are accurate 

and complete and whether any affiliates of 

each listed entity should be added or 

removed. 

PART 756—[AMENDED] 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 756 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 

3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of July 23, 

2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008). 

■ 9. In § 756.1, add a new paragraph 

(a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 756.1 Introduction. 

(a) * * * 

(3) A decision on a request to remove 

or modify an Entity List entry made 

pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Christopher R. Wall, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–19102 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 740, 742, 744, 748, 750, 

754, 764 and 772 

[Docket No. 0612242559–8545–02] 

RIN 0694–AD94 

Mandatory Electronic Filing of Export 

and Reexport License Applications, 

Classification Requests, Encryption 

Review Requests, and License 

Exception AGR Notifications 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule requires that export 

and reexport license applications, 

classification requests, encryption 

review requests, License Exception AGR 

notifications and related documents be 

submitted to the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) via its Simplified 

Network Application Process (SNAP–R) 

system. This requirement does not 

apply to applications for Special 

Comprehensive Licenses or in certain 

situations in which BIS authorizes 

paper submissions. 

DATES: Effective date October 20, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this rule contact 

William Arvin, e-mail 

warvin@bis.doc.gov or tel. 202–482–

2440. For information about registering 

for or using the SNAP–R system contact 

Lisa Williams at 202–482–2148. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

BIS administers a system of export 

and reexport controls in accordance 

with the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR). In doing so, BIS 

requires that parties wishing to engage 

in certain transactions apply for 

licenses, submit encryption review 

requests, or submit certain notifications 

to BIS. BIS also reviews, upon request, 

specifications of various items and 

determines their proper classification 

under the EAR. Currently, members of 

the public submit these applications, 

requests and notifications to BIS in one 

of three ways: via SNAP–R, via BIS’s 

Electronic License Application 

Information Network (ELAIN), or via the 

paper BIS Multipurpose Application 

Form BIS 748–P and its two appendices, 

the BIS 748–P A (item appendix) and 

the BIS 748–P B (end user appendix). In 

many instances, BIS needs additional 

documents to act on the submission. For 

documents that relate to paper 

submissions, the documents can be 

mailed or delivered to BIS with the BIS 

748–P form. For submissions made 

electronically via ELAIN, the documents 

must be sent to BIS separately and 

matched up with the applications when 

they arrive. 

In 2006, BIS replaced its then existing 

Simplified Network Application 

Processing system (SNAP) with an 

improved system referred to as ‘‘SNAP 

Redesign (SNAP–R)’’. The 

improvements include the ability to 

include documents related to a 

submission in the form of PDF (portable 

document format) files as ‘‘attachments’’

to the submission. Other improvements 

include a feature that allows BIS 

personnel to securely request additional 

information from the submitting party 

and for the party to submit that 

information in a manner that ties the 

chain of communication to the 

submission. 

BIS believes that use of SNAP–R will 

reduce processing times and simplify 

compliance with and administration of 

export controls. SNAP–R provides not 

only improved efficiency in submission 

and processing, but improved end-user 

security through rights management and 

an updated application and security 

infrastructure. 

Therefore, beginning October 20, 2008 

all export and reexport license 

applications (other than Special 

Comprehensive License and Special Iraq 

Reconstruction License applications), 

classification requests, encryption 

review requests, License Exception AGR 

notifications, and ‘‘attached’’ related 

documents must be submitted to BIS via 

its Simplified Network Application 

Process Redesign (SNAP–R) system 

unless BIS authorizes paper 

submissions. This rule also sets forth 

the criteria under which BIS authorizes 

paper submissions. 

Changes Made by This Rule 

The changes that this rule makes 

center on part 748 of the EAR, which 

sets forth the principal procedures 

governing the submission of the 

applications, review requests and 

notifications affected by this rule. The 

changes are in § 748.1 ‘‘General 

provisions,’’ § 748.3 ‘‘Classification 

requests, advisory opinions, and 

encryption review requests,’’ and in 

§ 748.6 ‘‘General instructions for license 

applications.’’ The rule also makes 

conforming changes to a number of EAR 

provisions that currently employ 

language related to the paper forms. 

Substantive Changes 

Section 748.1 is revised to emphasize 

electronic filing over paper and to set 

forth the basic requirement that license 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
49324 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

applications (other than Special 

Comprehensive License or Special Iraq 

Reconstruction License applications), 

encryption review requests, License 

Exception AGR notifications, and 

classification requests and any 

accompanying documents must be 

submitted via SNAP–R unless BIS 

authorizes submission via paper. 

Revised section 748.1 continues to 

specify that for paper submissions, only 

original BIS paper forms may be used 

and that reproductions or facsimiles are 

not acceptable. 

Section 748.1 also sets forth the 

criteria under which BIS will authorize 

paper submissions. Those criteria are: 

(1) BIS has received no more than one 

submission from the party in the twelve 

months immediately preceding the 

current submission, i.e., the combined 

total of the party’s license applications 

(other than Special Comprehensive 

Licenses), encryption review requests, 

License Exception AGR notifications, 

and classification requests could not 

exceed one; (2) the party does not have 

access to the Internet; (3) BIS has 

rejected the party’s electronic filing 

registration or revoked its eligibility to 

file electronically; (4) BIS has requested 

that the party submit on paper for a 

particular transaction; or (5) BIS has 

determined that urgency, a need to 

implement government policy or a 

circumstance outside the submitting 

party’s control justifies allowing paper 

submissions on a particular instance. 

Parties who wish to submit on paper 

must submit the BIS Form 748–P. In 

addition to the information relevant to 

the substance of the submission itself, 

the submitter must include, either on 

the form or as an attachment, a 

statement explaining which of the five 

foregoing criteria justifies a paper 

submission and provide supporting 

information. If BIS agrees that at least 

one of the criteria is met, it will process 

the submission in accordance with its 

regular procedures. If BIS finds that 

none of the criteria asserted by the 

submitter are met, it will return the form 

without action and inform the submitter 

of the reason for rejecting the request to 

file on paper. A decision by BIS to reject 

the request to file on paper is subject to 

appeal under part 756 of the EAR. This 

rule also moves the address for paper 

submissions from § 748.2 to § 748.1. 

Section 748.3 is revised to replace 

instructions about where and how to 

submit classification requests, with a 

reference to the procedures in § 748.1 

and to require that documents 

submitted with the classification request 

be submitted in PDF format as 

attachments to the SNAP–R submission 

unless BIS had authorized a paper 

submission pursuant to § 748.1 of the 

EAR. Section 748.3 continues to state 

requirements about the kinds of 

information that must be included in 

classification requests. 

Section 748.6 is revised to require that 

any documents submitted in support of 

any license application submitted via 

SNAP–R be submitted via the SNAP–R 

system as PDF (portable document 

format) files. Section 748.6 also is 

revised to remove the statement that 

application control numbers are 

preprinted on the paper forms. The 

paper forms will continue to bear a 

preprinted application control number, 

but for electronic submissions, 

application control numbers are 

communicated to the submitter 

electronically once BIS accepts the 

submission. 

Conforming Changes 

Prior to publication of this rule, a 

number of EAR provisions stated that a 

particular submission must be made on 

the BIS 748–P paper form or its 

electronic equivalent. If such a 

provision referred to a classification 

request or encryption review request, 

this rule revises that provision to state 

that the submission must be made in 

accordance with §§ 748.1 and 748.3. If 

such a provision referred to a license 

application (other than a Special 

Comprehensive License application or 

Special Iraq Reconstruction License), 

this rule also would revise that 

provision to state that the submission 

must be in accordance with §§ 748.1, 

748.4 and 748.6. The changes described 

in this paragraph are to be made in: 

• § 740.8(b)(2), relating to 

classification requests pursuant to 

License Exception ‘‘Key Management 

Infrastructure (KMI)’’; 

• § 740.9(a)(4)(i) and (iii), relating to 

authorizations to sell or dispose of or to 

retain abroad more than one year items 

exported under License Exception 

‘‘Temporary imports, exports and 

reexports (TMP)’’; 

• § 740.12(a)(2)(iii)(C), relating to 

applications to exceed the frequency 

limits for individual gift parcels under 

License Exception ‘‘Gift parcels and 

humanitarian donations (GFT)’’; 

• § 740.15, footnote number 4, 

relating to certain exports to U.S. or 

Canadian vessels; 

• § 740.17(d)(1), relating to the 

submission of encryption review 

requests under License Exception 

‘‘Encryption commodities and software 

(ENC)’’; 

• § 742.15(b)(2)(i), relating to 

submission of review requests for 

certain encryption items; 

• Supplement No. 6 to part 742, 

relating to submission of review 

requests for certain ‘‘mass market’’

encryption commodities and software; 

• § 754.2(g)(1), relating to 

applications for export of certain 

California crude oil; 

• § 754.4(d)(1), relating to 

applications to export unprocessed 

Western Red Cedar; and 

• § 764.7(b)(2)(i), relating to 

applications to take certain actions with 

respect to certain items in Libya. 

This rule replaces the requirement to 

use the form BIS 748–P in § 740.18(c)(2) 

when submitting notice to the 

government in advance of shipments 

under License Exception ‘‘Agricultural 

Commodities (AGR)’’ with a 

requirement to submit such notices in 

accordance with § 748.1 of the EAR. 

This rule also replaces references to 

the BIS 748-P Multipurpose Application 

Form with the word ‘‘application’’ in 

provisions that describe certain 

information that must be submitted with 

particular types of license applications. 

This change emphasizes that the same 

information is required regardless of 

whether an application is submitted on 

paper or electronically. The change 

described in this paragraph is made in: 

• § 742.2(e)(1), relating to certain 

license requirements imposed for 

chemical and biological weapons 

proliferation concerns; 

• § 744.21(d), relating to applications 

to export or reexport certain items to 

known military end-uses in the People’s 

Republic of China; 

• § 748.4(b)(1), relating to disclosure 

of parties on a license application; 

• § 748.4(b)(2)(ii), relating to written 

authority of certain agents to submit on 

a principal’s behalf; 

• § 748.5 introductory paragraph and 

paragraph (b), relating to parties on the 

application; 

• § 754.4(d)(2) and (d)(3), relating to 

applications for export of unprocessed 

western red cedar; 

• § 754.5(b)(2), relating to 

applications to export horses by sea; 

• Supplement No. 2 to Part 754, 

relating to applications for export of 

western red cedar: and 

• § 772.1, definition of ‘‘Other party 

authorized to receive license.’’

This rule removes the reference to 

date time stamping in § 754.2(g)(5)(i) by 

BIS of applications to export crude oil 

because that process occurs only with 

paper applications. However, the rule 

retains the policy in § 754.2(g)(5)(i) of 

issuing licenses for approved 

applications in the order in which the 

applications are received. 

This rule also changes the references 

to § 748.2(c) as a source of BIS’s address 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49325 

1Although the EAA expired in August 2001, the 

President has ordered that ‘‘the provisions of the 

[EAA] and the provisions for administration of the 

[EAA] shall be carried out * * * so as to continue 

in full force and effect * * * the export control 

system.’’ Executive Order 13222 (Aug. 17, 2001). 

The Department has determined, and federal courts 

have agreed, that this order has the effect of 

preserving the confidentiality requirements of 

Section 12(c). See e.g. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear 

Arms Control v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 317 F.3d 

275 (DC Cir. 2003). 

in §§ 748.3, 750.7(h)(3), 750.8(b) and 

750.9(a) to a reference to § 748.1(h)(3) 

because the rule removes § 748.2(c) and 

includes the address in § 748.1(h)(3). 

Public Comments 

Comments Related to Lack of Direct 

Data Interface Between SNAP–R and 

Corporate Databases 

BIS received comments on the 

proposed rule from eleven commenters. 

Eight commenters stated that SNAP–R 

should be modified to include 

capability for direct data transfer from 

corporate databases. Five of these eight 

stated that SNAP–R should not be made 

mandatory until it includes such a 

function. Two of the eight stated that a 

direct data interface was needed but did 

not state that they were opposed to 

making use of SNAP–R mandatory 

without such an interface. One of the 

eight supported making use of SNAP–R 

mandatory, but noted the need for a 

direct data interface. Four of the eight 

commenters stated that ‘‘rather than 

terminate ELAIN replace it with a 

program interface that incorporates 

SNAP–R data formats and document 

attachment capabilities.’’

The eight commenters who addressed 

direct data transfer offered the following 

points in support of the need for a direct 

data interface. Not all of the eight 

commenters offered all of these points 

and some of these points were offered 

by more than one commenter. 

• Lack of a direct interface forces 

users to go outside corporate computer 

systems that provide internal 

compliance checks, a practice that 

creates a compliance risk because it 

reduces management’s ability to see the 

information and removes a basis for 

analysis and audits of best practices 

throughout the corporation. 

• Manual data entry is a potential 

source of errors and is inefficient and 

costly. One commenter estimated that it 

will have to spend $50,000 in additional 

labor costs to do data entry in SNAP–

R. 

• Other government programs that 

require submission of export related 

information to the government have 

direct data interfaces. Commenters 

specifically mentioned the D–TRADE 

(used for State Department export 

license applications) and the Automated 

Export System (used to collect shippers’

export data). 

• The application of current Internet 

technologies (including file transfer and 

XML data formats) to parallel the 

SNAP–R Web site make the 

development of a SNAP–R automated 

interface a very modest information 

systems project. 

• Allowing direct data interface 

would allow large users to employ their 

own business compliance rules in the 

application submission process. In some 

cases, these internal rules might be 

stricter than the minimum EAR 

requirements. 

• Allowing direct data interface 

would allow large users to incorporate 

automated denied persons list 

screening, automated status checking, 

message handling and notifications into 

the industry side of the system. 

• Although BIS addressed the impact 

of the rule on small entities, it did not 

address the fact that a large percentage 

of submissions come from a small 

number of submitters and the burden 

that manual data entry would impose on 

them. 

BIS acknowledges the convenience 

and potential cost savings that can be 

provided to the public by a direct data 

transmission from the applicants’

computer systems to BIS. However, BIS 

must also consider the security 

requirements of its computer systems. 

These security needs are based on both 

Federal information system security 

requirements and a statutory provision 

that precludes BIS from disclosing 

certain information in those systems, 

except as provided by law. As a 

government agency, BIS must comply 

with these requirements in a manner 

that treats similarly situated parties in a 

similar manner. 

The data provided to BIS through the 

submissions affected by this rule can 

include sensitive international trade 

information about pricing, technical 

design or the identity of potential 

customers. The systems that contain the 

data are high security impact systems in 

accordance with Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publication 199, 

Standards for Security Categorization of 

Federal Information Systems and the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Special Publication (SP) 

800–60, Guide for Mapping Types of 

Information and Information Systems to 

Security Categories. These standards did 

not exist when ELAIN was created in 

the 1980s. 

In addition to the need to comply 

with government standards for high 

security impact systems, BIS is 

obligated to implement the provisions of 

Section 12(c) of the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended 

(EAA). Section 12(c) of the EAA 

prohibits the release of information that 

was obtained for the purpose of 

consideration of or that concerns license 

applications without a determination 

that the release of such information is in 

the national interest. To meet this 

obligation, BIS, among other things, 

makes efforts to guard against 

unauthorized access to its computer 

systems that contain information that is 

protected by Section 12(c) of the EAA.1

Meeting these obligations poses ever 

increasing challenges for BIS. Over the 

last decade, the number and 

sophistication of cyber attacks on 

government systems has increased. BIS 

is a confirmed target of these attacks and 

in order to prevent the loss or 

compromise of the data that it is 

obligated to protect, BIS has adopted 

stringent measures. 

BIS requires extraordinary IT Security 

measures due to its: (1) International 

trade data which per FIPS–199 

referenced above, carries a ‘‘high’’

security impact level, and (2) 

confirmation by the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. 

Computer Emergency Response Team 

(USCERT) that BIS is a target of 

international actors engaging in broad 

federal level cyber espionage. The 

former requires data security exceeding 

even the requirements of personal 

privacy information; the latter requires 

security infrastructure over and above 

that provided by commercially available 

products. 

The general nature of the cyberespionage threat is that BIS has been 

and continues to be the target of 

attempts by external actors to exfiltrate 

data. The history and pattern of these 

attacks support the premise that their 

frequency and sophistication are likely 

to increase. BIS bases its information 

technology security planning upon that 

premise. 

The most effective BIS response to the 

cyber-espionage threat is to implement 

a compartmentalized network and 

security infrastructure to secure mission 

critical export control system 

applications and data from foreign 

intrusions. Physical and logical 

segregation is the same concept applied 

to classified systems and data 

protection. BIS has implemented this 

approach for the same reasons that it is 

applied in classified environments—the 

cyber espionage vulnerabilities exceed 

the protections provided by commercial 

products in a non-compartmentalized 

environment. As confirmed with DHS 

and other independent federal and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
49326 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

private security experts, a 

compartmentalized system is the only 

approach which will, with a high degree 

of certainty, yield results. Selective 

targeted IT security measures have not 

been and are not effective because of the 

breadth, resources, sophistication and 

nature of the attack methods. For 

example, the BIS compartmentalization 

includes, but is not limited to, export 

control system segregation from general 

internet access, and particular e-mail 

message formats and attachments. This 

not only allows BIS to continue to 

mitigate, with 100% effectiveness, the 

risk of BIS systems losing sensitive data, 

but to ensure its systems are not used 

to launch an attack against the exporter 

community or other agencies. 

Finally, this security posture must be 

implemented with the principle that 

any direct computer interface standard 

to be implemented for the purpose of 

submitting data to BIS should not 

arbitrarily exclude any party. 

With these considerations in mind, 

BIS has assessed options for 

accomplishing the goals of the 

commenters without breaching its 

security and fairness obligations. This 

examination included, but was not 

limited to, review of procedures used by 

the other agencies referenced by the 

commenters. 

For example, one method to achieve 

the commenters’ objectives would be to 

allow direct data interface between 

private sector computer systems and the 

BIS licensing systems. BIS rejected this 

alternative. Allowing a system of 

unknown security standards to interface 

directly with a high impact security 

system is, in BIS’s view, inconsistent 

with the security controls specified in 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology publication 800–53A, Guide 

for Assessing the Security Controls in 

Federal Information Systems. This 

position is reinforced by the information 

provided by Federal and private 

security sources, and the knowledge BIS 

has acquired in responding to previous 

attempts by outside parties to gain 

access to data in its information 

systems. BIS has determined that this 

method would pose an unacceptable 

risk of compromise and unauthorized 

system and data access. 

BIS also considered the option of 

allowing data transmission from private 

sector computers to a logically and 

physically segregated BIS computer that 

would be isolated from BIS systems that 

would store sensitive data. There are 

options to mitigate but not to eliminate 

the risk posed by malicious code which 

may be embedded in transmissions and 

data content. Given sufficient time and 

resources, BIS could implement an 

isolation and containment solution that 

would provide an acceptable level of 

risk mitigation. However, the cost of the 

solution would increase as the number 

of unique user systems authorized to 

interface directly with BIS computer 

systems increased. The possibility of 

concealing harmful code in a data 

transmission and the corresponding 

costs and technical challenges of 

detecting and removing that code exist 

regardless of the data interface method 

or format; they will simply differ in 

nature if BIS applies an XML schema as 

suggested by one commenter. 

Because costs and complexity would 

increase as the number of unique user 

systems increased, providing 

opportunity for direct data transmission 

to all parties who submitted comments 

requesting direct data transmission to 

BIS would not be cost effective given 

current information technology security 

requirements and capabilities. 

Moreover, BIS could not in fairness 

limit such costs and complexity by 

restricting direct data transmission to a 

few parties or to a limited number of 

service providers. Doing so would favor 

some private sector parties over others 

and could be viewed as fostering a 

government protected oligopoly. 

After considering the foregoing 

factors, BIS concludes that eliminating 

the ELAIN system and requiring use of 

the SNAP–R Web based data entry 

system is the best available alternative 

given current information technology 

capabilities and fiscal constraints. 

Accordingly, BIS intends to discontinue 

use of ELAIN and require the use of the 

SNAP–R system unless one of the 

reasons for authorizing paper 

submissions set forth in this rule applies 

in particular case. 

Comment Related to Cost Reduction 

Afforded by SNAP–R 

One commenter noted that use of 

SNAP–R would likely reduce costs and 

processing time compared to paper 

forms. 

BIS agrees. One of the main 

advantages of an electronic system such 

as SNAP–R is reduced costs and 

processing time. 

Comments Proposing Changes to SNAP–

R That Are Not Related to the Proposed 

Rule 

BIS received several comments 

proposing changes to SNAP–R that do 

not address the issues in the proposed 

rule. BIS will consider these comments 

as it further develops the SNAP–R 

system and may implement them as 

resources become available. These 

comments are: 

• SNAP–R should provide status 

checking ability similar to STELA, 

either in addition to STELA or instead 

of STELA; 

• Licensing officers should be able to 

enter remarks about the status of a 

submission that would be readable by 

the applicant; 

• SNAP–R should list the licensing 

officer assigned to the application; 

• SNAP–R should allow edits to the 

commodity field after the field is saved 

by the user; 

• Improve SNAP–R rights 

management to allow better 

management oversight via access to all 

of the company’s submissions, 

employee reassignments, assignment of 

access rights, systematic peer review 

and coordination of export control 

compliance policies, and practices 

among affiliated companies (Consider 

the United Kingdom’s SPIRE system as 

an example); 

• Allow exporters to designate third 

parties to submit on their behalf and to 

monitor the activities of those third 

parties; 

• Include application control 

numbers or reference numbers in the 

drop down menu; 

• Interact with the National Security 

Agency (NSA) so that encryption 

requests submitted via SNAP–R are 

automatically routed to NSA instead of 

requiring applicant to submit a copy of 

its SNAP–R submission to NSA; and 

• Revise the ‘‘View Messages’’ screen 

in SNAP–R to add columns that show 

the (submitter’s) reference number and 

the application control number and 

allow the submitter to sort the display 

on these columns. 

These comments embody proposals to 

make SNAP–R more useful or effective. 

BIS believes that they need not be 

addressed in connection with this rule. 

BIS will consider these comments in 

connection with its future efforts to 

improve SNAP–R. 

Comments Proposing Changes That 

Cannot Be Implemented at This Time 

Because of Legacy System Limitations 

Two comments proposed changes to 

SNAP–R that cannot be implemented at 

this time because of limitations of the 

legacy Export Control Automated 

Support System (ECASS). ECASS, 

which has been operational since the 

early 1980s, is the computer system that 

BIS uses for internal processing of 

license applications, classification 

requests, encryption review requests 

and License Exception AGR 

notifications. BIS will consider these 

comments in connection with its multiyear incremental ECASS redesign and 

deployment of the ECASS Redesign 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49327 

(ECASS–R) system. However, the 

expectation is that the changes proposed 

in these two comments, if adopted, will 

not be implemented until the final stage 

of the ECASS–R system deployment 

when the legacy ECASS system is 

retired. This is because the legacy 

ECASS system architecture is an 

outdated ‘‘monolithic’’ design; although 

the new ECASS–R system is being 

implemented in modules incrementally, 

the legacy system must be retired in its 

entirety to implement broad data 

element changes cost effectively. 

These two comments are: 

• Increase the number of characters 

permitted in the line item field; and 

• Increase the number of characters 

permitted in the technical note field. 

Comment Related to the Ability of 

SNAP–R To Accept Data Required by 

the Export Administration Regulations 

One commenter stated that BIS 

should change the computer/ 

microprocessor performance field to 

accommodate APP (adjusted peak 

performance) rather than MTOPS 

(millions of theoretical operations per 

second). 

In April 2006, the EAR were amended 

to replace the computer performance 

metric composite theoretical 

performance (CTP) measured in 

millions of theoretical operations per 

second (MTOPS) with a new metric 

called adjusted peak performance (APP) 

measured in weighted teraFLOPS (WT). 

In November 2007, another EAR 

amendment replaced CTP with APP for 

microprocessor performance 

measurement. In the preamble to the 

April 2004 rule, BIS noted that a 

computer with a CTP of 190,000 

MTOPS would have an APP of 

approximately 0.75 WT. A change of 

this magnitude requires an adjustment 

to the range of values that may be 

entered into the relevant field in SNAP–

R. Currently SNAP–R will accept a 

range of values ranging from 0.0000001 

to 9.9999999 WT. After considering 

applications and licenses currently in 

its database and estimating the rate of 

future increases in computer 

performance, BIS believes that SNAP–R 

as currently configured is adequate for 

data input of currently available 

computers and microprocessors. 

However, BIS estimates that computers 

with a performance level of 10 WT or 

greater are likely to be available 

sometime in the year 2009 or 2010. 

Therefore, BIS will begin the change 

control review process to modify 

SNAP–R to accept values exceeding 10 

WT in the APP field. 

Comments Concerning Electronically 

‘‘Attaching’’ Files to SNAP–R 

Submissions 

BIS received comments concerning 

the requirements for electronically 

‘‘attaching’’ documents to the SNAP–R 

submissions. These comments are: 

• Expand the size of supporting 

documents allowed via SNAP (SNAP–

R). Exporters must use both paper and 

electronic means for submission of a 

single application. 

• Not all submissions are paper and 

exporters must use both paper and 

electronic means for submission of a 

single application. 

BIS contacted the commenter who 

provided this comment for clarification 

and queried its licensing officers to 

identify instances of the problems 

alluded to in these comments. With the 

information obtained from those 

sources, BIS concluded that these 

comments are intended to address the 

following three issues: 

• A submitter may not have a PDF 

version of the document. In one 

instance identified by a BIS licensing 

officer, the only electronic copy was in 

JPEG (joint photography experts group) 

format. 

• A document may be too large to fit 

into the submitter’s scanner. 

• The submitter’s PDF file is larger 

than the maximum file size that SNAP–

R accepts for attachments. 

BIS believes that no changes to the 

rule or to SNAP–R are needed because 

of the issues raised in these comments. 

BIS selected PDF as the file format for 

attachments in SNAP–R because it is 

widely available, low cost and BIS can 

effectively implement security measures 

that provide a high level of protection 

against the Adobe related attack vectors. 

BIS notes that PDF files are widely used 

for transmission of technical 

documents. Although some documents 

are too large to scan in desktop 

scanners, commercial services that can 

scan such documents exist. SNAP–R 

will accept attachment files up to 10 Mb 

in size. BIS has reviewed the SNAP–R 

submissions that it has received and 

determined that the typical file size is 

approximately 5 Mb. SNAP–R does not 

place a limit on the number of files that 

may be attached to a submission. In 

some cases, the submitter may be able 

to split the file into more than one file 

to get below the file size limitations. 

Finally, BIS notes that one of the criteria 

under which BIS will authorize paper 

submissions is ‘‘BIS has determined that 

urgency, a need to implement U.S. 

government policy or a circumstance 

outside the submitting party’s control 

justify allowing paper submissions in a 

particular instance.’’ BIS believes that 

this criterion provides it with adequate 

discretion to authorize paper 

submissions in instances where 

circumstances truly make attaching PDF 

files impracticable. 

Comment Related to SNAP–R 

Registration Procedures 

One commenter stated a two-week 

period to issue a Personal Identification 

Number is not suitable if SNAP (SNAP–

R) is mandatory. 

BIS agrees that, in nearly all cases, 

two weeks should not be needed to 

issue a PIN. BIS believes that most PINs 

are issued substantially less than two 

weeks time. BIS encourages persons 

who believe that the issuance of a PIN 

is taking inordinately long to contact the 

Export Management and Compliance 

Division at 202 482 2148 or 202 482 

0062. 

Changes in This Final Rule Compared 

to the Proposed Rule 

After review of the comments, BIS is 

making no changes to the substantive 

points of the proposed rule in response 

to the comments. BIS is making only the 

following technical and conforming 

changes compared to the proposed rule. 

The proposed rule did not state 

whether the applications for a Special 

Iraq Reconstruction License (SIRL) 

would be required to be filed via SNAP–

R. SIRL applications are similar to 

Special Comprehensive License (SCL) 

applications. This final rule explicitly 

states the SNAP–R filing is not required 

for SIRLS, thereby giving the two 

similar applications the same treatment. 

In § 740.17, footnote number 4 is 

revised to refer to §§ 748.1, 748.4 and 

748.6, the sections that govern license 

application submission under this rule. 

In § 742.2(e)(1), the reference to the 

BIS form 748–P is changed to a 

reference to an application. 

In § 750.7(h)(3), 750.8(b), and 750.9(a) 

the reference to § 748(c) is replaced with 

§ 748.1(d)(2) because this rule removes 

§ 748.2(c) and includes the relevant 

information in § 748.1(d)(2). 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. This rule has been determined to be 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
49328 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(OMB) Control Number. This regulation 

involves collections previously 

approved by the OMB under control 

number 0694–0088, ‘‘Simplified 

Network Application Processing 

System’’ which carries a burden hour 

estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and 

submit form BIS–748. Miscellaneous 

and recordkeeping activities account for 

12 minutes per submission. This 

proposed rule would require persons 

seeking authorization to submit paper 

filings to state, either in the additional 

information block on the paper form or 

an attachment, which of the criteria for 

paper submissions they meet and the 

reasons therefore. BIS believes that 

requests seeking authorization to submit 

paper filings would impose a minimal 

burden on applicants as the information 

requirements are small and the number 

of requests is expected to be low. 

Applicants making a request would 

identify one or more of the 5 criteria 

under which BIS would authorize a 

paper submission, and provide the 

factual basis for the authorization to 

submit on paper. BIS estimates that only 

a small number of submissions will seek 

authorization to file on paper. In 2008, 

more than 96% of all submissions 

affected by this rule were submitted to 

BIS via SNAP–R. Therefore, BIS 

estimates that this requirement will 

make no material change of the 

estimated time of 58 minutes needed to 

prepare and submit a BIS–748. Send 

comments regarding these burden 

estimates or any other aspect of these 

collections of information, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, by 

e-mail at david_rostker@omb.eop.gov or 

by fax to (202) 395–7285; and to the 

Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, Department of 

Commerce, Room H 2705, 14th Street 

and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

3. This rule does not contain policies 

with Federalism implications as that 

term is defined in Executive Order 

13132. 

4. The Chief Counsel for Regulation at 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the 

Small Business Administration that this 

rule, if adopted, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis was published in the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

BIS received no comments that 

addressed the economic impact of this 

rule on small entities, therefore a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis was not 

prepared. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Parts 740, 750 and 748 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

15 CFR Part 742 

Exports, Terrorism. 

15 CFR Part 744 

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Terrorism. 

15 CFR Part 754 

Agricultural commodities, Exports, 

Forests and forest products, Horses, 

Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

15 CFR Part 764 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Law enforcement, 

Penalties. 

15 CFR Part 772 

Exports. 

■ Accordingly, parts 740, 742, 744, 748, 

750, 754, 764 and 772 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (15 CFR 

730–774) are amended as follows: 

PART 740—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 740 is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; Sec. 901–911, Public Law 

106–387; 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 

3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice 

of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008). 

■ 2. In § 740.8 revise paragraph (b)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 740.8 Key management infrastructure 

(KMI). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) For such classification requests, 

indicate ‘‘License Exception KMI’’ in 

Block 9 on the application. Submit the 

request to BIS in accordance with 

§§ 748.1 and 748.3 of the EAR and send 

a copy of the request to: Attn: ENC 

Encryption Request Coordinator, 9800 

Savage Road, Suite 6940, Fort Meade, 

MD 20755–6000. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 740.9 revise the first sentences 

of paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(iii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 740.9 Temporary imports, exports and 

reexports (TMP). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * If the exporter or the 

reexporter wishes to sell or otherwise 

dispose of the items abroad, except as 

permitted by this or other applicable 

provision of the EAR, the exporter or 

reexporter must request authorization 

by submitting a license application to 

BIS in accordance with §§ 748.1, 748.4 

and 748.6 of the EAR. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * If the exporter wishes to 

retain an item abroad beyond the 12 

months authorized by paragraph (a) of 

this section, the exporter must request 

authorization by submitting a license 

application in accordance with §§ 748.1, 

748.4 and 748.6 of the EAR to BIS 90 

days prior to the expiration of the 12 

month period. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 740.12, revise paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 740.12 Gift parcels and humanitarian 

donations (GFT). 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(C) Parties seeking authorization to 

exceed these frequency limits due to 

compelling humanitarian concerns (e.g., 

for certain gifts of medicine) should 

submit a license application in 

accordance with §§ 748.1, 748.4 and 

748.6 of the EAR to BIS with complete 

justification. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 740.15, revise footnote 4 to 

paragraph (c), introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 740.15 Aircraft and vessels (AVS). 

* * * * * 4Where a license is required, see §§ 748.1, 

748.4 and 748.6 of the EAR. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 740.17 revise paragraph (d)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 740.17 Encryption commodities and 

software (ENC). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

(1) Instructions for requesting review. 

Review requests submitted to BIS must 

be submitted as described in §§ 748.1 

and 748.3 of the EAR. See paragraph 

(e)(5)(ii) of this section for the mailing 

address for the ENC Encryption Request 

Coordinator. To ensure that your review 

request is properly routed, insert the 

phrase ‘‘License Exception ENC’’ in 

Block 9 (Special Purpose) of the 

application. Also, place an ‘‘X’’ in the 

box marked ‘‘Classification Request’’ in 

Block 5 (Type of Application) of Form 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49329 

BIS–748P or select ‘‘Commodity 

Classification’’ if filing electronically. 

Neither the electronic nor paper forms 

provide a separate block to check for the 

submission of encryption review 

requests. Failure to properly complete 

these items may delay consideration of 

your review request. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 740.18 revise paragraph (c)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 740.18 Agricultural commodities (AGR). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) Procedures. You must provide 

prior notification of exports and 

reexports under License Exception AGR 

by submitting a completed application 

in accordance with § 748.1 of the EAR. 

The following blocks must be 

completed, as appropriate: Blocks 1, 2, 

3, 4, 5 (by marking box 5 ‘‘Other’’), 14, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 (a), (e), (f), (g), (h), 

(i), (j), 23, and 25 according to the 

instructions described in Supplement 

No. 1 to part 748 of the EAR. If your 

commodity is fertilizer, western red 

cedar or live horses, you must confirm 

that BIS has previously classified your 

commodity as EAR99 by placing the 

Commodity Classification Automatic 

Tracking System (CCATS) number in 

Block 22(d). BIS will not initiate the 

registration of an AGR notification 

unless the application is complete. 

* * * * * 

PART 742—[AMENDED] 

■ 8. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 742 is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 

42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 

U.S.C. 7210; Sec 1503, Public Law 108–11, 

117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 

CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 

33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 

12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 

950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 

Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 

CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential 

Determination 2003–23 of May 7, 2003, 68 

FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of July 23, 

2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008); Notice of 

November 8, 2007, 72 FR 63963 (November 

13, 2007). 

■ 9. Revise the first sentence of 

§ 742.2(e)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 742.2 Proliferation of chemical and 

biological weapons. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Supplement No. 1 to part 748 of 

the EAR provides general instructions 

for completing license applications 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 742.15, revise paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 742.15 Encryption items. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * 

(i) Procedures for requesting review. 

To request review of your mass market 

encryption products, you must submit 

to BIS and the ENC Encryption Request 

Coordinator the information described 

in paragraphs (a) through (e) of 

Supplement No. 6 to this part 742, and 

you must include specific information 

describing how your products qualify 

for mass market treatment under the 

criteria in the Cryptography Note (Note 

3) of Category 5, Part 2 (‘‘Information 

Security’’), of the Commerce Control 

List (Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of 

the EAR). Submit review requests to BIS 

in accordance with §§ 748.1 and 748.3 

of the EAR. To ensure that your review 

request is properly routed, insert the 

phrase ‘‘Mass market encryption’’ in 

Block 9 (Special Purpose) and place an 

‘‘X’’ in the box marked ‘‘Classification 

Request’’ in Block 5 (Type of 

Application) Block 5 does not provide a 

separate item to check for the 

submission of encryption review 

requests. Failure to properly complete 

these items may delay consideration of 

your review request. Submissions to the 

ENC Encryption Request Coordinator 

should be directed to the mailing 

address indicated in § 740.17(e)(5)(ii) of 

the EAR. BIS will notify you if there are 

any questions concerning your request 

for review (e.g., because of missing or 

incomplete support documentation). 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In Supplement No. 6 to part 742 

revise the first sentence to read as 

follows: 

Supplement No. 6 to Part 742

Guidelines for Submitting Review 

Requests for Encryption Items 

Review requests for encryption items must 

include all of the documentation described in 

this supplement and be submitted to BIS in 

accordance with §§ 748.1 and 748.3 of the 

EAR. 

* * * * * 

PART 744—[AMENDED] 

■ The authority citation for part 744 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 

42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 

U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 

3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 

FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 

12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 

356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 

Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 

CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 

44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 

13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 

786; Notice of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 

(July 25, 2008); Notice of November 8, 2007, 

72 FR 63963 (November 13, 2007). 

■ 12. Revise § 744.21(d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 744.21 Restrictions on certain military 

end-uses in the People’s Republic of China. 

* * * * * 

(d) License application procedure. 

When submitting a license application 

pursuant to this section, you must state 

in the ‘‘additional information’’ block of 

the application that ‘‘this application is 

submitted because of the license 

requirement in § 744.21 of the EAR 

(Restrictions on Certain Military Enduses in the People’s Republic of 

China).’’ In addition, either in the 

additional information block or in an 

attachment to the application, you must 

include all known information 

concerning the military end-use of the 

item(s). If you submit an attachment 

with your license application, you must 

reference the attachment in the 

‘‘additional information’’ block of the 

application. 

* * * * * 

PART 748—[AMENDED] 

■ 13. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 748 is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 

3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 

FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice 

of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008). 

■ 14. In § 748.1, revise paragraph (a) and 

add a paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 748.1 General provisions. 

(a) Scope. In this part, references to 

the Export Administration Regulations 

or EAR are references to 15 CFR chapter 

VII, subchapter C. The provisions of this 

part involve requests for classifications 

and advisory opinions, export license 

applications, encryption review 

requests, reexport license applications, 

and certain license exception notices 

subject to the EAR. All terms, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
49330 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

conditions, provisions, and instructions, 

including the applicant and consignee 

certifications, contained in electronic or 

paper form(s) are incorporated as part of 

the EAR. For the purposes of this part, 

the term ‘‘application’’ refers to both 

electronic applications and the Form 

BIS–748P: Multipurpose Application. 

* * * * * 

(d) Electronic Filing Required. All 

export and reexport license applications 

(other than Special Comprehensive 

License or Special Iraq Reconstruction 

License applications), encryption 

review requests, license exception AGR 

notifications, and classification requests 

and their accompanying documents 

must be filed via BIS’s Simplified 

Network Application Processing system 

(SNAP–R), unless BIS authorizes 

submission via the paper forms BIS 

748–P (Multipurpose Application 

Form), BIS–748P–A (Item Appendix) 

and BIS–748P–B, (End-User Appendix). 

Only original paper forms may be used. 

Facsimiles or reproductions are not 

acceptable. 

(1) Reasons for authorizing paper 

submissions. BIS will process paper 

applications notices or requests if the 

submitting party meets one or more of 

the following criteria: 

(i) BIS has received no more than one 

submission (i.e. the total number of 

export license applications, reexport 

license applications, encryption review 

requests, license exception AGR 

notifications, and classification 

requests) from that party in the twelve 

months immediately preceding its 

receipt of the current submission; 

(ii) The party does not have access to 

the Internet; 

(iii) BIS has rejected the party’s 

electronic filing registration or revoked 

its eligibility to file electronically; 

(iv) BIS has requested that the party 

submit a paper copy for a particular 

transaction; or 

(v) BIS has determined that urgency, 

a need to implement U.S. government 

policy or a circumstance outside the 

submitting party’s control justify 

allowing paper submissions in a 

particular instance. 

(2) Procedure for requesting 

authorization to file paper applications, 

notifications, or requests. The applicant 

must state in Block 24 or as an 

attachment to the paper application 

(Form BIS 748–P) which of the criteria 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this section it 

meets and the facts that support such 

statement. Submit the completed 

application, notification or request to 

Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Pennsylvania, NW., Room H2705, 

Washington DC 20230. 

(3) BIS decision. If BIS authorizes or 

requires paper filing pursuant to this 

section, it will process the application, 

notification or request in accordance 

with Part 750 of the EAR. If BIS rejects 

a request to file using paper, it will 

return the Form BIS–748P and all 

attachments to the submitting party 

without action and will state the reason 

for its decision. 

§ 748.2 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 748.2, remove paragraph (c). 

■ 16. In § 748.3 revise; paragraph (b) 

introductory text, the final sentence of 

paragraph (b)(1), paragraph (b)(2) and 

first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 748.3 Classification requests, advisory 

opinions, and encryption review requests. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Submit classification 

requests in accordance with the 

procedures in § 748.1. 

(1) * * * Classification requests must 

be supported by any descriptive 

literature, brochures, precise technical 

specifications or papers that describe 

the items in sufficient technical detail to 

enable classification by BIS submitted 

as PDF files attached to the SNAP–R 

submission unless a paper submission is 

authorized pursuant to § 748.1 of the 

EAR. 

(2) When submitting a classification 

request, you must complete Blocks 1 

through 5, 14, 22(a), (b), (c), (d), and (i), 

24, and 25 on the application. You must 

provide a recommended classification 

in Block 22(a) and explain the basis for 

your recommendation based on the 

technical parameters specified in the 

appropriate ECCN in Block 24. If you 

are unable to determine a recommended 

classification for your item, include an 

explanation in Block 24, identifying the 

ambiguities or deficiencies that 

precluded you from making a 

recommended classification. 

(c) * * * Advisory opinion requests 

must be in writing and be submitted to 

the address listed in § 748.1(d)(2). * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 17. In § 748.4, revise the third 

sentence of paragraph (b)(1) and the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read 

as follows. 

§ 748.4 Basic guidance related to applying 

for a license. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * (1) * * * If there is any 

doubt about which persons should be 

named as parties to the transaction, the 

applicant should disclose the names of 

all such persons and the functions to be 

performed by each in Block 24 of the 

application. * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * Block 7 of the application 

(documents on file with applicant) must 

be marked ‘‘other’’ and Block 24 

(Additional information) must be 

marked ‘‘748.4(b)(2)’’ to indicate that 

the power of attorney or other written 

authorization is on file with the agent. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. In § 748.5, revise the first sentence 

of the introductory paragraph and the 

second sentence of paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 748.5 Parties to the transaction. 

The following parties may be entered 

on the application. * * * 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * If a person and address is 

listed in Block 15 of the application, the 

Bureau of Industry and Security will 

send the license to that person instead 

of the applicant. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. In § 748.6, revise paragraph (a), the 

first sentence of paragraph (b) and 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 748.6 General instructions for license 

applications. 

(a) Instructions. General instructions 

for filling out license applications are in 

Supp. No. 1 to this part. Special 

instructions for applications involving 

certain transactions are listed in § 748.8 

and described fully in Supp. No. 2 to 

this part. 

(b) * * * Each application has an 

application control number. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) Attachments to applications. 

Documents required to be submitted 

with applications filed via SNAP–R 

must be submitted as PDF files using the 

procedures described in SNAP–R. 

Documents required to be submitted 

with paper applications must bear the 

application control number to which 

they relate and, if applicable, be stapled 

to the paper form. Where necessary, BIS 

may require you to submit additional 

information beyond that stated in the 

EAR confirming or amplifying 

information contained in your license 

application. 

* * * * * 

PART 750—[AMENDED] 

■ 20. The authority citation for part 750 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; Sec. 1503, Public Law 

108–11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 

58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 

13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 

783; Presidential Determination 2003–23 of 

May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49331 

Notice of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 

2008). 

■ 21. Revise the last sentence of 

§ 750.7(h)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 750.7 Issuance of licenses. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) * * * The written request must be 

submitted to BIS at the address listed in 

§ 748.1(d)(2) of the EAR. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Revise the second sentence of 

§ 750.8(b) to read as follows: 

§ 750.8 Revocation or suspension of 

licenses. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The license must be 

returned to BIS at the address listed in 

§ 748.1(d)(2) of the EAR, Attn: ‘‘Return 

of Revoked/Suspended License’’. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Revise the first sentence of 

§ 750.9(a) to read as follows: 

§ 750.9 Duplicate licenses. 

(a) * * * If a license is lost, stolen or 

destroyed, you, as the licensee, may 

obtain a duplicate of the license by 

submitting a letter to the BIS at the 

address listed in § 748.1(d)(2) of the 

EAR, Attention: ‘‘Duplicate License 

Request’’. 

* * * * * 

PART 754—[AMENDED] 

■ 24. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 754 is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 

7430(e); 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 

6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 

E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., 

p. 114; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 

FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of July 23, 

2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008). 

■ 25. In § 754.2, revise paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (g)(5)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 754.2 Crude oil. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

* * * * * 

(1) Applicants must submit their 

applications in accordance with 

§§ 748.1, 748.4 and 748.6 of the EAR. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) BIS will issue licenses for 

approved applications in the order in 

which the applications are received, 

with the total quantity authorized for 

any one license not to exceed 25 percent 

of the annual authorized volume of 

California heavy crude oil. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. In § 754.4, revise paragraphs 

(d)(1), (d)(2), and the introductory text 

of paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 754.4 Unprocessed Western Red Cedar. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Applicants requesting to export 

unprocessed western red cedar must 

apply for a license in accordance with 

§ 748.1, 748.4 and 748.6 of the EAR, 

submit any other documents as may be 

required by BIS, and submit a statement 

from an authorized representative of the 

exporter, reading as follows: 

I, (Name) (Title) of (Exporter) 

HEREBY CERTIFY that to the best of my 

knowledge and belief the (Quantity) 

(cubic meters or board feed scribner) of 

unprocessed western red cedar timber 

that (Exporter) proposes to export was 

not harvested from State or Federal 

lands under contracts entered into after 

October 1, 1979. 

lllllllllllllllllll

Signature 

lllllllllllllllllll

Date 

(2) In Blocks 16 and 18 of the 

application, ‘‘Various’’ may be entered 

when there is more than one purchaser 

or ultimate consignee. 

(3) For each application submitted, 

and for each export shipment made 

under a license, the exporter must 

assemble and retain for the period 

described in part 762 of the EAR, and 

produce or make available for 

inspection, the following: 

* * * * * 

■ 27. In § 754.5 revise the second 

sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 754.5 Horses for export by sea. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * You must provide a 

statement in the additional information 

section of the application certifying that 

no horse under consignment is being 

exported for the purpose of slaughter. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. In Supplement No. 2 to Part 754, 

revise footnote number 2 to read as 

follows: 

Supplement No. 2 to Part 754—Western 

Red Cedar 

2Report commodities on license 

applications in the units of quantity 

indicated. 

* * * * * 

PART 764—[AMENDED] 

■ 29. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 764 is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 

3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 

3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice 

of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008). 

■ 30. In § 764.7, revise the second 

sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 764.7 Activities involving items that may 

have been illegally exported or reexported 

to Libya. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * License applications should 

be submitted in accordance with 

§§ 748.1, 748.4 and 748.6 of the EAR, 

and should fully describe the relevant 

activity within the scope of § 764.2(e) of 

this part which is the basis of the 

application. 

* * * * * 

PART 772—[AMENDED] 

■ 31. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 772 is revised to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 

3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 

3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice 

of July 23, 2008, 73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008). 

■ 32. In § 772.1 revise the second 

sentence of the definition of the term 

‘‘Other party authorized to receive 

license.’’

§ 772.1 Definitions of terms as used in the 

Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 

* * * * * 

Other party authorized to receive 

license. * * * If a person and address 

is listed in Block 15 of the application, 

the Bureau of Industry and Security will 

send the license to that person instead 

of the applicant. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Christopher R. Wall, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18852 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES