[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58265-58274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15810]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 734, 744 and 772

[Docket No. 240712-0190]
RIN 0694-AI06


Standards-Related Activities and the Export Administration 
Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this interim final rule, the Bureau of Industry and 
Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to 
revise the scope and the terms used in the EAR to describe ``standards-
related activities'' that are subject to the EAR. BIS is making these 
revisions to ensure that

[[Page 58266]]

export controls and associated compliance concerns do not impede the 
participation and leadership of U.S. companies in legitimate standards-
related activities.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This rule is effective July 18, 2024.
    Comment date: Comments must be received by BIS no later than 
September 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number BIS-
2020-0017 or RIN 0694-AI06, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. You can find this interim final rule by searching for its 
regulations.gov docket number, which is BIS-2020-0017.
    All filers using the portal should use the name of the person or 
entity submitting comments as the name of their files, in accordance 
with the instructions below. Anyone submitting business confidential 
information should clearly identify the business confidential portion 
at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure 
and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and also provide 
a non-confidential version of the submission.
    For comments submitted electronically containing business 
confidential information, the file name of the business confidential 
version should begin with the characters ``BC.'' Any page containing 
business confidential information must be clearly marked ``BUSINESS 
CONFIDENTIAL'' on the top of that page. The corresponding non-
confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked 
``PUBLIC.'' The file name of the non-confidential version should begin 
with the character ``P.'' The ``BC'' and ``P'' should be followed by 
the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Any 
submissions with file names that do not begin with a ``BC'' or ``P'' 
will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly available 
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kramer, Regulatory Policy 
Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. 
Phone: (202) 482-2440; Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Participation and leadership in standards development is crucial to 
protecting and enhancing U.S. national and economic security and has 
been instrumental to the global technological leadership of the United 
States. Standards development underpins U.S. economic prosperity and 
fortifies U.S. leadership in critical and emerging technologies. The 
U.S. standards development system is unique because it is built upon a 
wide variety of processes that are open, voluntary, decentralized, and 
led by the private sector. These processes feature openness to 
participation by materially interested stakeholders and consensus-based 
decision making. Finalized standards are primarily published by private 
sector standards organizations, not the U.S. Government.
    On May 4, 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration announced the 
``United States Government National Standards Strategy for Critical and 
Emerging Technology'' (USG NSSCET). The USG NSSCET is intended to 
support and complement existing private sector-led activities and 
plans, including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
United States Standards Strategy (USSS), with a focus on critical and 
emerging technology(ies) (CET). Consistent with the USG NSSCET 
strategy, the Commerce Department is committed to engaging ``with a 
broad range of private sector, academic and other key stakeholders, 
including foreign partners, to address gaps and bolster U.S. 
participation in [CET] standards development activities.'' As outlined 
in the USG NSSCET, the U.S. Government is prioritizing efforts for CET 
standards development in identified areas that are essential to U.S. 
national security and competitiveness in critical industries including 
biotechnologies; positioning, navigation and timing services; 
communications and networking technologies; and quantum information 
technologies among others. The USG NSSCET outlines four objectives 
(investment, participation, workforce, and integrity and inclusivity) 
and eight corresponding lines of effort to ensure that the United 
States remains a global leader in developing merit-based standards that 
embrace transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, 
effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and broad participation. More 
information regarding the USG NSSCET can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/US-Gov-National-Standards-Strategy-2023.pdf.
    Since 2019, BIS has made a number of revisions to the EAR (15 CFR 
parts 730-774) that have affected U.S. participation and leadership in 
standards-related activities. Most recently, BIS published an interim 
final rule, ``Authorization of Certain ``Items'' to Entities on the 
Entity List in the Context of Specific Standards Activities'' (see 87 
FR 55241 (September 9, 2022)) (the September 2022 rule), that amended 
the EAR to authorize the release of specified items subject to the EAR 
when such release is for a ``standards-related activity'' as defined in 
the EAR (a term in double quotes indicates the term is defined in part 
772 (Definition of Terms) of the EAR). Additional information about 
that process, the listing of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and its non-
U.S. affiliates (collectively ``Huawei''), and associated licensing 
requirements can be found at 84 FR 22961 (May 21, 2019) (background 
section providing a brief overview of how entities are added to the 
Entity List); see also 87 FR at 55241 (background section describing 
licensing requirements for Huawei as a result of being added to the 
Entity List).
    The revisions promulgated in the September 2022 rule sought to 
ensure that export controls do not impede the participation and 
leadership of U.S. companies in standards-related activities. As noted 
in that rule, any impediment to U.S. participation in standards 
development forums is a national security threat to the United States 
because it not only limits U.S. leadership in standards development, 
but other countries are already racing to replace U.S. participation 
with their own leadership and standards. In many cases, a decrease in 
U.S. participation not only undermines U.S. national security and 
foreign policy interests but also contributes to a potential future 
global standards environment that works to oppose U.S. interests.

BIS Regulatory Actions and Standards

    BIS has been actively involved on issues related to standards and 
export controls since the addition of Huawei to supplement no. 4 to 
part 744 (Entity List) of the EAR on May 16, 2019 (See 84 FR 22961 (May 
21, 2019)). The addition of Huawei to the Entity List imposed a license 
requirement on all exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to 
Huawei and its listed affiliates. Since that action and subsequent 
additions of other Huawei affiliates to the Entity List, BIS has 
engaged with industry as well as the interagency on export controls and 
standards-related activities and has published two interim final rules 
specific to how the EAR treat standards-related activities.

(a) TGL and the June 2020 IFR

    First, to avoid disruption to existing U.S. and global 
telecommunications networks, on May 22, 2019, BIS issued

[[Page 58267]]

a Temporary General License (TGL) to authorize certain activities with 
Huawei, including, among other things, U.S. industry's participation as 
necessary for the development of 5G standards by a duly recognized 
standards body when Huawei was also participating in the standards-
related activities (see 84 FR 23468 (May 22, 2019)). The TGL was 
subsequently extended through August 13, 2020. As the TGL was set to 
expire, BIS published an interim final rule with a request for comment, 
``Release of ``Technology'' to Certain Entities on the Entity List in 
the Context of Standards Organizations'' (see 85 FR 36719, June 18, 
2020) (the June 2020 rule), that amended the EAR to authorize the 
release of certain technology to Huawei and its affiliates on the 
Entity List.
    The June 2020 rule defined ``standards'' and ``standards 
organizations'' on the basis of the Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-119 (OMB A-119) definitions and authorized limited releases 
of low-level ``technology'' and ``software'' to Huawei in the context 
of ``standards'' in a ``standards organization.'' In public comments 
received in response to the June 2020 rule, U.S. industry raised 
concerns that the definitions and provisions promulgated in the June 
2020 rule were chilling U.S. industry's participation in standards 
development.
    Standards development in the United States, unlike in other 
countries, is driven by the private sector (e.g., industry, academia, 
etc.), which is an important factor that has fueled effective U.S. 
leadership in standards development. The U.S. Government takes a 
consultative role in this process through the work of the Department of 
Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 
Although the countries from which standards proposals originate are 
identified during standards development and setting activities, company 
affiliations are generally not known and are not a requirement for 
membership or participation.
    Certain export control-related factors in the standards-making 
process, including but not limited to BIS's increased use of end-use 
and end-user controls, led to an environment of uncertainty for U.S. 
companies. They stopped sharing information and data in international 
standards bodies and in legitimate standards development activities 
because of, e.g., the participation of entities listed on the Entity 
List (other than Huawei) in standards bodies and standards development 
activities. Standards bodies began to view the United States as a less 
than ideal place to hold standards meetings and discussions, as U.S. 
export controls introduced an element of non-openness which is contrary 
to the spirit and definition of standards organization espoused by OMB 
A-119. As a result, U.S. leadership in international standards 
development was at risk in key industries. The lack of U.S. 
participation in standards that form the foundation of future 
industrial and commercial development worldwide directly and negatively 
impacts U.S. national security, and limits U.S. global commercial 
influence. This encourages foreign actors to develop and promote their 
own standards across the global community at the expense of the United 
States. Additionally, U.S. non-participation in the development of 
standards affects U.S. companies as they must manufacture items that 
meet foreign standards.

(b) September 2022 IFR

    In response to the public comments received on the June 2020 rule 
and following renewed consultation among government agencies, BIS 
published the September 2022 rule amending the EAR to authorize the 
release of specified items subject to the EAR without a license to 
entities added to the Entity List pursuant to Sec.  744.11 in the 
narrow circumstance when that release occurs in the context of a 
``standards-related activity,'' as defined in the September 2022 rule. 
Specifically, BIS clarified the scope and application of standards 
activities covered by the authorization by removing the defined terms 
for ``standards'' and ``standards organization'' from the EAR and 
adding a new definition for ``standards-related activity'' that more 
accurately reflects the standards-setting landscape. BIS authorized the 
release of ``software'' controlled for anti-terrorism (AT) reasons only 
and items designated EAR99 (i.e., items subject to the EAR but not 
identified on the Commerce Control List (supplement no. 1 to part 774) 
(CCL)) in the scope of the authorization and included the release of 
specific ``software'' and ``technology'' only for the ``development,'' 
``production,'' and ``use'' of cryptographic functionality in the 
authorization. The rule also required that the items were authorized 
for release only if there was an intent to ``publish'' the resulting 
standard. Additionally, the language regarding ``standards-related 
activity'' was removed from the License Requirement column in the 
Entity List and added to Sec. Sec.  744.11 and 744.16 of the EAR. The 
September 2022 rule thus revised the scope of the standards 
authorization to apply to entities on the Entity List with license 
requirement solely referencing Sec.  744.11 and not other end use and 
end user license requirements in other sections of parts 744 (Control 
Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and 746 (Embargoes and Other 
Special Controls) of the EAR.
    Prior to the June 2020 rule, the majority of entities on the Entity 
list had, and continue to have, a license requirement that refers to 
Sec.  744.11. Since the publication of the June 2020 rule, however, BIS 
has published a number of rules that have expanded end-use and end-user 
controls. As a result, since the publication of the June 2020 rule, 
over 400 additional entities have been added to the Entity List with a 
license requirement that references a provision other than Sec.  
744.11. In recognition of these circumstances, in the September 2022 
rule, BIS requested comments on whether excluding these other end-use 
and end-user provisions of the EAR from the authorization would 
negatively impact and prevent U.S. industry from actively participating 
and leading in ``standards-related activities,'' or if export controls 
and compliance concerns would continue to limit U.S. leadership and 
participation in standards-related activities, thereby negatively 
impacting U.S. commercial and national security interests.

B. Changes to Licensing Requirements in the Context of Specific 
Standards Activities

    Based on public comments received from the September 2022 rule (as 
summarized in Section D), as well as continued discussions with other 
U.S. Government agencies and industry, BIS is amending the EAR to 
ensure that export controls and associated compliance concerns do not 
continue to impede or jeopardize U.S. participation and leadership in 
legitimate standards-related activities. The national security threat 
that results from ceding, and in some cases ceasing, U.S. participation 
and leadership in standards development and promulgation far outweighs 
the risks related to the limited release of the authorized low-level 
technology and software to parties on the Entity List when released in 
the context of a ``standards-related activity.'' BIS has concluded that 
excluding end-use and end-user controls from the authorization has had 
and will continue to have unintended negative consequences on the U.S. 
national security interests by curtailing U.S. involvement in 
legitimate standards-related activities.
    As further detailed in the White House report on USG NSSCET

[[Page 58268]]

discussing the key objective of U.S. participation, the U.S. Government 
is taking action to ``remove and prevent barriers to private sector 
participation in standards development.'' Standards activities and 
development will continue to drive technological and industrial growth 
with or without input from U.S. companies. For U.S. industry to keep 
its leadership role and continued participation in standards 
development, especially in critical and emerging technologies 
identified in the USG NSSCET, the U.S. Government must address this 
issue comprehensively. As public comments to prior efforts to control 
exports related to standards development have shown, not addressing 
U.S. industry's uncertainty regarding the end-use and end-user controls 
in the EAR is counterproductive and endangers U.S. commercial and 
strategic interests over the long term. To address these concerns and 
to further streamline and clarify controls over technology and software 
subject to the EAR as related to standards-related activities, BIS is 
making the following revisions to the EAR:
    1. Moving the authorization for ``standards-related activity'' that 
was added to Sec.  744.11 in the September 2022 rule to Sec.  734.10. 
BIS is also making necessary conforming changes to Sec.  744.16 and the 
introductory paragraph to supplement no. 4 to Part 744. This final rule 
does not change existing provisions in these sections regarding patents 
and whether they are subject to the EAR.
    2. Revising the existing definition of `standards-related activity' 
and adding the revised definition to Sec.  734.10. This rule clarifies 
that a ``standards-related activity'' includes activities conducted 
with the intent to ``publish'' a standard as well as those conducted 
for an already ``published'' standard. BIS revises the definition of 
``standards-related activity'' to remove the phrase ``with which 
compliance is not mandatory.'' In addition, in Part 772, BIS is 
revising the definition for ``standards-related activity'' to reference 
Sec.  734.10.
    When ``technology'' or ``software'' is released for a ``standards-
related activity,'' the same item scope promulgated in the September 
2022 continues to apply, i.e., specific ``technology'' or ``software'' 
is not subject to the EAR if the item is designated EAR99, controlled 
on the CCL for anti-terrorism (AT) reasons only, or the release is of 
specified ``software'' and ``technology'' when specifically for the 
``development,'' ``production,'' and ``use'' of cryptographic 
functionality.

C. Request for Additional Public Comments for This Interim Final Rule

    Instructions for submission of comments, including comments that 
contain business confidential information, are found in the ADDRESSES 
section of this interim final rule. BIS is requesting comment on 
whether the revisions promulgated in this interim final rule 
effectively promote Objective 2 of the USG NSSCET by removing and 
preventing barriers to private sector participation in standards 
development.

D. Summary and Response to Comments Received Regarding the September 
2022 Standards Interim Final Rule

    The summary and responses to the nine relevant comments that BIS 
received from the September 2022 interim final rule have been separated 
into seven topic areas. For topics in which the comments expressed the 
same or very similar viewpoints, BIS has addressed them by topic area 
rather than by individual comment. For topic areas in which the 
commenters expressed unique viewpoints, thoughts, or ideas, BIS has 
addressed the individual comments. The majority of comments have been 
addressed by the revisions to the EAR promulgated in this rule. BIS 
greatly appreciates the public comments received and encourages 
continued engagement and feedback.
    Topic Area 1: Limits on standards-related activities due to export 
controls creates economic and national security risks for the United 
States.
    Five commenters noted that any chilling of U.S. participation and 
leadership in standards development creates new security risks and 
vulnerabilities that threaten U.S. economic and national security 
interests. For example, one commenter stated that when its organization 
is restricted from engaging in information-sharing activities because 
those activities are not covered under the definition of ``standards-
related activities,'' its organization loses the opportunity to receive 
valuable and potentially time-sensitive information about cyber 
incidents, threats, and vulnerabilities as well as the ability to 
further discuss those issues among the organization's members and 
identify needed and appropriate resolutions.
    Another commenter stated that ``it is important that there be a 
two-way communication regarding security vulnerabilities discovered in 
hardware and software items. If participation of Entity List entities 
is restricted, then security vulnerabilities discovered by these 
entities, many of which are quite large, may be withheld as they 
develop their own competing standards after being locked out of access 
to participation.'' The same commenter went on to state that ``we 
believe that the revised EAR exemption, as amended by the IFR, 
continues to work against the stated intent of the IFR and against the 
national security interests of the United States by prohibiting the 
dissemination of technology and software subject to the EAR in the 
context [of] standards-related activity when these specified items are 
released by open membership organizations'' that develop their 
standards via an open process available to any member.
    Response: BIS understands, as commenters have stated, that limits 
on the sharing of information in a standards development environment 
have both economic and national security implications. The national 
security threat that results from ceding U.S. participation and 
leadership in standards development and promulgation far outweighs the 
risks related to the limited release of low-level technology and 
software to parties on the Entity List in the context of a ``standards-
related activity'' that supports U.S. commercial and economic 
interests. Therefore, in this rule, BIS is amending part 734 of the EAR 
so that activities that meet the definition of ``standards-related 
activity'' are no longer subject to the EAR. Specifically, when 
released for a ``standards-related activity,'' ``technology'' or 
``software'' is not subject to the EAR if it meets the item scope of 
734.10(b)(1) and is released for a ``published'' standard and/or occurs 
with the intent that the resulting standard will be ``published.''
    The USG NSSCET specifically highlights U.S. leadership in standards 
development of critical technologies. The USG NSSCET Executive Summary 
explicitly states that: ``strength in standards development has been 
instrumental to the United States' global technological leadership. 
Standards development underpins economic prosperity across the country 
and fortifies U.S. leadership in the industries of the future at the 
same time. Bolstering U.S. engagement in standards for critical and 
emerging technology (CET) spaces will strengthen U.S. economic and 
national security.''
    Additionally, the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA; 50 
U.S.C. 4801-4852) states under Sec.  4811(3) that: ``the national 
security of the United States requires that the United States maintain 
its leadership in the science,

[[Page 58269]]

technology, engineering, and manufacturing sectors, including 
foundational technology that is essential to innovation. Such 
leadership requires that United States persons are competitive in 
global markets.''
    Both the USG NSSCET and ECRA support and endorse the revisions to 
the EAR to ensure that export controls and licensing requirements do 
not prove detrimental to or limit the ability of U.S. industry to 
participate in and lead international standards development across 
industries, especially in areas critical to United States industrial, 
commercial, and national security leadership.
    Topic Area 2: U.S. export controls continue to hinder U.S. 
leadership and participation in international standards development.
    Six commenters expressed concern that the export controls and 
license requirements related to the sharing of information in a 
standards-development forum, as implemented in the September 2022 rule, 
were continuing to hinder and chill U.S. companies' participation in 
international standards development. Specifically, one commenter stated 
that ``[o]pen standardization is critical to U.S. leadership across 
established and emerging technology areas and limiting [the] ability of 
SSO's [standard setting organizations] would provide significant 
barriers to U.S. participation and leadership in standardization.'' 
Another commenter noted that the current authorization is 
``[i]nsufficient to maintain U.S. leadership at organizations that work 
on standards'' and that it does not adequately ``support global 
cooperation on other critical activities conducted by standards 
organizations.'' One commenter stated that unless BIS broadens the 
scope of the authorization, they anticipate that the organization's 
legal department will not allow it to participate in any meetings at 
which Entity List parties could potentially be in attendance.
    Four commenters noted that the export controls and license 
requirements that apply only to U.S. companies have the effect of 
walling off U.S. standards development from global development and 
allowing foreign actors to develop and promote their own standards 
across the global community at the expense of the United States. One of 
the commenters stated that controls that lead SSOs to limit U.S. 
entities' participation in global standards development will ``fragment 
the standardization ecosystem that has served U.S. interests well to 
date . . . .'' Another commenter stated that compliant use of the 
limited authorization ``would impose a significant compliance burden as 
international standards organizations would need to restructure groups 
to isolate standards related activities from other activities and spend 
resources to monitor communications among members.'' As noted above, 
another commenter said, ``if participation of Entity List entities is 
restricted, then security vulnerabilities discovered by these entities, 
many of which are quite large, may be withheld as they develop their 
own competing standards after being locked out of access to 
participation.'' Finally, a commenter noted that artificial limits on 
sharing of information favors compliance by larger commercial 
enterprises at the expense of smaller parties, including other 
standards organizations that do not have the same resources as large 
commercial operations.
    Response: BIS agrees that the September 2022 authorization is not 
broad enough to allow U.S. companies to participate freely in standards 
development due to uncertainty regarding whether the information they 
are sharing is subject to the EAR and, if so, whether EAR license 
requirements apply. BIS recognizes the importance of protecting 
sensitive and leading-edge U.S. technology but understands the national 
security implications of limiting U.S. participation and leadership in 
international standards development. BIS appreciates that the U.S. 
Government needs to apply U.S. export controls in a way that supports 
and encourages U.S. technological leadership in standards development, 
particularly in light of efforts by adversarial countries to 
coordinate, subsidize, and promote activities in international 
standards bodies for the benefit of their own enterprises and industry 
leadership. BIS also recognizes that an environment of competing 
national standards or the exclusion of U.S. companies in international 
standards development is not advantageous to U.S. commercial or 
national security interests. Therefore, in this final rule, BIS has 
made ``standards-related activities'' not subject to the EAR as long as 
the ``release'' of the ``software'' or ``technology'' during these 
activities meets the criteria contained in revised Sec.  734.10 of the 
EAR. This treatment of ``standards-related activity'' as defined in 
Sec.  734.10 will support U.S. companies' efforts to create and 
maintain a leadership position in the global standards community in all 
industries.
    BIS further agrees that fragmentation in the standards development 
environment could provide foreign actors and organizations with an 
opening to develop their own unique and separate international 
standards, without U.S. industry input or participation, and at the 
expense of U.S. commercial and national security interests. This 
fragmentation leads to significant disadvantages for U.S. industry by 
providing foreign actors with the opportunity to specify their own 
indigenous benchmarks that U.S. companies must adhere to or lose market 
share. U.S. non-participation in the foreign development of such 
standards also affects U.S. companies' bottom line as they must revise 
their manufacturing processes to meet the foreign standards. This final 
rule alleviates such concerns by providing U.S. companies the ability 
to freely participate in all standards-development forums by making the 
release of software or technology in such forums not subject to the 
EAR, provided the releases meet the criteria of new Sec.  734.10(b) of 
the EAR. It also obviates the need for U.S. companies to wall off their 
input into global standards development.
    Topic Area 3: Revise the definition of ``standards-related 
activity.''
    BIS received comments requesting that the agency revise, expand, 
and clarify the definition of ``standards-related activity.''
    Four commenters suggested that BIS should expand the definition of 
``standards-related activity.'' One commenter stated that the 
definition should include but not be limited to ``the sharing of 
technical assistance and exchange of information within conformity 
assessment procedures, with the intent that the resulting standard will 
be ``published'' in order to clarify that sharing and exchanging 
technical information is within the scope of the authorization. Another 
commenter suggested that the definition is too narrow and should be 
expanded to ``activities outside of ``standards-related activities'' '' 
so as to include ``many vital functions of international standards 
organizations that are necessary and incidental to standards related 
activity but may be conducted outside the context of standards 
development, such as fostering the exchange of information on 
developing industry trends and discussions of emerging issues among 
members.'' Another commenter suggested expanding the definition ``to 
include information sharing activities by members of standards 
organizations on emerging issues and developments.'' The last commenter 
on this topic proposed allowing a standards-related activity to occur 
if conducted in a Voluntary Consensus Standards Body

[[Page 58270]]

(VCSB), as defined by OMB Circular A-119. In the September 2022 rule, 
BIS removed the ``standards organization'' definition and replaced it 
with a ``standards-related activity authorization.'' According to the 
commenter, however, the VCSB definition does not require that standards 
be ``published.''
    Five commenters requested that BIS remove the word mandatory from 
the definition of ``standards-related activity'' in part 772 of the 
EAR. Essentially all of the commenters stated that in the context of 
standards development, whether or not a standard will be voluntary or 
mandatory makes no difference to the stakeholders involved in the 
development of the standard. Additionally, some voluntary standards 
become mandatory when adopted through national (domestic) regulations, 
such as international aircraft standards promulgated by the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
    Five commenters stated that the current wording of the 
authorization implied that standards-related activities were covered by 
the authorization only before or during publication of the standard. 
These commenters asked for clarification that such activities continued 
to be covered by the authorization after publication of the standards. 
One commenter noted that conformance testing is a vital component in 
the commercialization of standards compliant products and that the 
``vast majority of such activities only usefully occur after a standard 
has been published and compliant products have been produced.'' Another 
commenter noted that ``BIS already provides examples of activities that 
occur in connection with already published standards (promulgating, 
revising, amending, reissuing, interpreting, implementing . . .)'' but 
that such actions do not occur for a standard that does not yet exist. 
These commenters gave examples of three SSOs engaged in cellular, 
wireless, and other devices that routinely engage in standards-related 
activities for already published standards, such as conformity 
assessments. Two commenters requested clarification on whether 
organizations that are not VCSBs that ``require a party to be a member 
of an organization to receive standards in their final form'' would 
qualify for the authorization.
    One commenter suggested that BIS extend the current authorization 
to additional standards activities that occur before the standard is 
published. According to this commenter, in information and 
communications technology (ICT) ``compliance testing also includes pre-
product release activities intended to help products reliably 
interoperate with other products implementing the same standards. The 
need for such activities arises from the fact that ICT standards 
frequently do not provide sufficient detail to ensure complete 
interoperability without additional tinkering.'' This commenter 
suggests that the additional tinkering is often done via a ``plugfest'' 
which is ``an activity that allows competing vendors to meet and test 
their products against each other, often anonymous to each other, to 
work out the final technical changes necessary to allow consumers and 
business purchasers to achieve the type of `plug and play' ease of use 
they require. Because plugfests are usually conducted before products 
reach the marketplace, and often before their existence or 
specifications have been publicly disclosed, they are non-public and 
conducted on a confidential basis. Typically, the technical information 
exchanged one on one between two vendors includes only that information 
that is necessary to allow each vendor to work out the cause of a lack 
of compatibility.''
    Response: BIS agrees with most of these comments. In new Sec.  
734.10(b), BIS revises and clarifies the scope of what is authorized 
when released for a ``standards-related activity.'' When released for a 
``standards-related activity,'' ``technology'' or ``software'' is not 
subject to the EAR once it meets at least one condition in both Sec.  
734.10(b)(1) and (2). The scope of the ``technology'' or ``software'' 
covered by the authorization has not been revised and is now listed in 
Sec.  734.10(b)(1). The conditions in Sec.  734.10(b)(2) clarify that 
activities that occur after the publication of a standard are included 
in the definition of ``standards-related activity''--i.e., a 
``standards-related activity'' occurring specific to an already 
``published'' standard is included in the authorization. BIS also 
removed the phrase ``with which compliance is not mandatory'' from the 
definition of ``standards-related activity.''
    BIS is not expanding the definition of ``standards-related 
activity'' to include activities that are conducted in a VCSB as the 
expansion is unwarranted. Based on public comment and engagement with 
other agencies, BIS has determined that the relevant activities of a 
VCSB are already captured in the definition of ``standards-related 
activity'' or, as in the example provided by the commenter, not subject 
to the EAR (see discussion in Topic Area 4). BIS welcomes public 
comments on whether there are additional VCSB activities that are 
excluded from the current definition of ``standards-related activity'' 
and remain subject to the EAR.
    Topic Area 4: Expand the definition of ``published in Sec.  734.7 
of the EAR.''
    Comment: Six commenters suggested that the definition of 
``published'' be expanded to cover standards development activities. 
One commenter suggested that the EAR's definition of ``published'' 
should be expanded to include the ``sharing of technical assistance and 
exchange of information within conformity assessment procedures.''
    Response: The definition of ``standards-development activity'' in 
part 772 already explicitly includes the exchange of technical data in 
the conformity process provided it is for the purpose of standards-
development activities. Therefore, no further revisions are warranted 
to the definition of ``published'' to reference the exchange of 
technical data.
    Comment: Another commenter suggested amending the text of Sec.  
734.7 of the EAR to replace the phrase ``without restrictions upon its 
further dissemination'' with the phrase ``in hard copy or electronic 
form available from, or viewable at, one or more public websites.'' The 
commenter makes this suggestion because ``virtually all standards bear 
copyright notices, and many standards setting organizations (SSOs) add 
further legends highlighting that copying and further distribution of 
their standards are prohibited. Some vigorously defend their copyrights 
in court.'' While it is true that many SSOs (and particularly 
consortia) give their standards away for free, most traditional SSOs 
derive a significant percentage of their revenues from the sale of 
their standards. Thus, in the view of this commenter, ``requiring 
unlimited downstream distribution'' as provided in existing Sec.  734.7 
``would violate the copyrights of SSOs.''
    Response: BIS believes that the regulatory amendments to Sec.  
734.10 of the EAR promulgated in this rule obviate the need to amend 
Sec.  734.7 of the EAR to account for standards that may be 
copyrighted. In this final rule, BIS has removed ``standards-related 
activities'' from being subject to the EAR, as long as the release of 
the ``software'' or ``technology'' meets the definition of a 
``standards-related activity'' as defined in part 772 of the EAR, and 
meets the requirements for ``release'' in new Sec.  734.10(b)(1) and 
the conditions of its ``release'' in new Sec.  734.10(b)(2) of the EAR.

[[Page 58271]]

    According to the criteria in new Sec.  734.10(b)(2), the 
``standards-related activity'' must be either for a ``published'' 
standard or occurs with the intent that the resulting standard will be 
``published.''
    Comment: Another commenter asked for confirmation that ``the 
references to `published' standards in the definition are not limited 
to standards-related activities only by those involved in the 
standard's development.'' The commenter also asked for confirmation 
that a third-party entity that is not a member of the organization that 
published the standard (for example, a consortium or a certification 
authority) but engages in ``standards-related activity'' with that 
standard is consistent with the definition of ``published'' as used in 
the definition of ``standards-related activity.''
    Response: BIS confirms that this scenario is consistent with the 
definition of ``standards-related activity'' in Sec.  734.10 and the 
definition of ``published'' in Sec.  734.7 of the EAR. The changes in 
this rule remove standards-related activities from being subject to the 
EAR when the stated conditions are met; as long as the conditions in 
new Sec.  734.10(b)(1) and (2) are met, then the activities would not 
be subject to the EAR.
    Comments: One commenter stated that their organization's ``model of 
open membership dissemination does not publish in conformity with the 
strict publish definition used in the IFR'' because although it makes 
standards readily available to the public, the interested member of the 
public must also be ``willing to agree to the terms and conditions in 
its membership agreement and pay its dues.'' The organization releases 
the resulting standards to all members without restriction. According 
to that commenter, ``this model does not conform to the strict 
definition of `published', so [the organization's] standards-related 
activities do not qualify for the exemption under the terms of the 
IFR.''
    Another commenter suggested that the definition of ``published'' be 
amended ``to include dissemination to membership organization . . . 
that are open to the public without restriction, apart from 
confidentiality responsibilities, standard terms and conditions, a 
demonstrated interest in the design, development, manufacture or sale 
of products or services which utilize the standards at issue, and dues 
or membership fees.'' An additional commenter requested clarification 
regarding the definition of ``published'' to make ``clear whether BIS 
recognizes that some standards organizations require a party to be a 
member of the organization to receive standards in their final form.''
    Response: The relevant criteria in Sec.  734.7 of the EAR that 
makes information not subject to the EAR is applicable when the 
information has been made available to the public without restrictions 
upon its further dissemination. This does not rely on cost or 
membership, provided that any member of the interested public could pay 
the associated membership dues and become a member if they so desired. 
Further, Sec.  734.7(a)(1) states that unclassified ``technology'' or 
``software'' is ``published'' and therefore not subject to the EAR, 
when it has been made available to the public without restrictions upon 
its further dissemination such as through ``subscriptions available 
without restriction to any individual who desires to obtain or purchase 
the published information.''
    Topic Area 5: Apply standards authorization to sections of EAR 
other than Sec.  744.11.
    Three commenters expressed concern that the September 2022 
authorization continued to chill U.S. industry participation in 
international standards development because it applied only to releases 
of ``software'' and ``technology'' to entities that were added to the 
Entity List under Sec.  744.11 of the EAR. These commenters noted that 
to allow the United States to freely participate in standards 
development forums, the authorization must be extended to all end users 
listed in part 744 of the EAR. One commenter stated the ``Entity (L)ist 
is not all encompassing of potentially restricted parties, particularly 
within context of EAR Part 744. Parties having other [part 744] 
designations (such as military end-users (MEU) in Sec.  744.21) may be 
present in such meetings or could otherwise receive the output 
documentation of such meetings.'' Another commenter noted that the 
authorization ``does not address territorial and end-use/end-user 
controls beyond the Entity List,'' which have affected standards 
organizations and that deter U.S. companies from participating and 
requiring standards organization to restrict their participation. All 
three commenters requested the expansion of the authorization to the 
release of the same types of items enumerated in Sec.  744.11(a)(1) to 
other part 744 end users.
    Another commenter stated that modifications such as expansion or 
flexibility should be applied to the end-use and end-user controls to 
enable U.S. industry to remain a thought-leader on standards-related 
activities. According to this commenter, the current authorization 
``requires the U.S. party to continually monitor membership of a 
standards organization to determine whether only parties on the Entity 
List are present or whether other restricted parties are potential 
recipients.'' This requires U.S. parties to ``over screen'' and 
continuously perform and refresh their due diligence to ensure that a 
non-designated party has not been added to one of the restricted lists.
    Two additional commenters expressed the same concern with regard to 
the amount of resources required to continuously monitor the end-use 
and end-user controls in part 744 of the EAR. These commenters 
suggested that the standards authorization be extended to other 
sections in part 744 but that this extension could be limited to 
countries listed in Country Group E (supplement no. 1 to part 740) of 
the EAR.
    Another commenter noted that the current sanctions and resulting 
license requirements for Russia and Belarus extend to certain EAR99 and 
AT-only controlled items; therefore, these restrictions have an even 
larger effect on U.S. participation in standards development than 
Entity List designations. This commenter stated that as long as the 
standards-related authorization ``does not apply to MEU or parties in 
Russia or Belarus, the international standards environment is likely to 
continue to fragment, which undermines U.S. leadership in these 
areas.'' This commenter also recommended expanding the authorization to 
parties outside of Country Group E that are not on the Entity List ``so 
that standards organizations (and U.S. membership) can fully benefit 
from the intent of the [authorization].''
    Three commenters requested that the current standards authorization 
be expanded to all entities on the Entity List (supplement no. 4 to 
part 744). One commenter noted that such an expansion would be 
``critical to US leadership across established and emerging technology 
areas'' and that limiting the authorization to only Entity List 
entities provides ``significant barriers to U.S. participation and 
leadership in standardization, fragment[s] the standardization 
ecosystem that has served U.S. interests well to date and create[s] new 
security risks and vulnerabilities that threaten U.S. economic and 
national security interests.'' Another commenter noted that unless BIS 
broadens the scope of the authorization, they anticipate that the 
organization's legal department will

[[Page 58272]]

not allow it to participate in meetings that may include Entity List 
entities.
    Response: The September 2022 rule expanded the scope of the 
authorization of releases of ``software'' and ``technology'' to all 
entities that were added to the Entity List under Sec.  744.11 of the 
EAR.
    This rule addresses the commenter's other concerns by removing from 
EAR jurisdiction ``technology'' and ``software'' listed in new Sec.  
734.10(b)(1) when they meet at least one condition in new Sec.  
734.10(b)(2). This means that the ``technology'' and ``software'' will 
not be subject to the EAR when released for standards-related 
activities as that term is defined in part 772 of the EAR to all end 
users listed in part 744 of the EAR.
    BIS notes that this change affects major industries in which global 
participation is crucial to create, maintain, and monitor international 
safety and operability standards. For example, as two commenters 
pointed out, the Russian Federal Air Transportation Agency (FATA) and 
the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) both participate in the 
ICAO, an agency of the United Nations that coordinates the principles 
and techniques of international air navigation and sets worldwide 
standards for civil aviation safety. ICAO has members that are subject 
to unilateral U.S. export controls under part 744 of the EAR beyond the 
Entity List; however, U.S. participation in the forum is crucial in 
furtherance of U.S. support of civil air safety, security, efficiency, 
capacity, and environmental protection and so that the commercial 
interests of U.S. aircraft manufacturers and aviation equipment 
manufacturers are sufficiently presented in the discussions. Lack of 
U.S. participation would cede the development of international 
standards to foreign actors that may not only disregard U.S. commercial 
and national security interests but actively work to destabilize them.
    This rule addresses these concerns by removing from EAR 
jurisdiction ``technology'' and ``software'' listed in new Sec.  
734.10(b)(1) when they meet at least one condition in new Sec.  
734.10(b)(2). This means that the specified ``technology'' and 
``software'' will not be subject to the EAR when released for 
standards-related activities as that term is discussed in 734.
    Topic Area 6: Current authorization and license requirements 
increase the compliance burden for U.S. companies.
    Four commenters stated that the current authorization increases the 
export control compliance burden of U.S. companies and standards 
organizations and their members. Two commenters stated this sentiment 
explicitly, with one commenter adding that ``compliant use of the 
exemption IFR would impose a significant compliance burden as 
international standards organizations would need to restructure groups 
to isolate standards related activities from other activities and spend 
resources to monitor communications among members.'' A third commenter 
stated that ``analyzing and complying with uneven or inconsistent rules 
and exemptions requires additional resources that [their organization] 
could allocate to projects, training, or developing standards.'' The 
requester asked that BIS keep in mind that it (and other standards 
organizations) do not have the same resources as large commercial 
operations.'' However, another commenter stated that the changes 
promulgated in the September 2022 rule reduced the compliance burden on 
their organization.
    Response: One organization's compliance burden has been reduced 
under the existing regulations, and with the publication of this rule 
and the changed focus on the activities themselves, BIS fully expects 
that the compliance burden for the other organizations will also be 
reduced. This is because this rule removes from EAR jurisdiction 
``technology'' and ``software'' listed in new Sec.  734.10(b)(1) when 
they meet at least one condition in new Sec.  734.10(b)(2). 
Accordingly, the listed ``technology'' and ``software'' will not be 
subject to the EAR when released for ``standards-related activities'' 
as that term is discussed in part 734 of the EAR.
    Topic Area 7: Use clear language and clarification.
    One commenter suggested that BIS use clear language and 
clarification in future regulations. Specifically, this commenter 
stated that ``any efforts to simplify, clarify or limit [the 
technology] restrictions would be gratefully received by SSO's, their 
decision makers, and their members.''
    Response: BIS will continue to strive to use clear language and to 
use guidance, including a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document, to 
further clarify published regulations in accordance with the Plain 
Writing Act of 2010.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. 
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which 
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as 
amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for 
BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS 
issues this rule.

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). E.O. 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This interim final rule has been designated as significant for purposes 
of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is 
required to respond to or 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 (OMB) Control Number. This interim final rule 
involves the collection currently approved by OMB under control number 
0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which 
includes, among other things, license applications. Total burden hours 
associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not 
expected to change because this rule does not impose any additional 
license requirements. Current information regarding this collection of 
information--including all background materials--can be found at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function 
to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications 
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA, this action is exempt from the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements, including 
prior notice and the opportunity for public comment.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for 
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are

[[Page 58273]]

not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is 
required, and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 734

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and 
patents, Research, Science and technology.

15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 772

    Exports.

    Accordingly, parts 734, 744 and 772 of the Export Administration 
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

PART 734--SCOPE OF THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 734 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 
950; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 
61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., 
p. 223; Notice of November 1, 2023, 88 FR 75475 (November 3, 2023).


0
2. Amend Sec.  734.3 by revising paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  734.3  Items subject to the EAR.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Appear in patents or open (published) patent applications 
available from or at any patent office, unless covered by an invention 
secrecy order, or are otherwise patent information or are for a 
standards-related activity as described in Sec.  734.10;
* * * * *

0
3. Section 734.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  734.10   Patents and standards-related activity.

    (a) Patents. ``Technology'' is not subject to the EAR if it is 
contained in any of the following:
    (1) A patent or an open (published) patent application available 
from or at any patent office;
    (2) A published patent or patent application prepared wholly from 
foreign-origin ``technology'' where the application is being sent to 
the foreign inventor to be executed and returned to the United States 
for subsequent filing in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
    (3) A patent application, or an amendment, modification, supplement 
or division of an application, and authorized for filing in a foreign 
country in accordance with the regulations of the Patent and Trademark 
Office, 37 CFR part 5; or
    (4) A patent application when sent to a foreign country before or 
within six months after the filing of a United States patent 
application for the purpose of obtaining the signature of an inventor 
who was in the United States when the invention was made or who is a 
co-inventor with a person residing in the United States.
    (b) Standards-related activity. A standards-related activity 
includes the development, adoption, or application of a standard (i.e., 
any document or other writing that provides, for common and repeated 
use, rules, guidelines, technical or other characteristics for products 
or related processes and production methods), including but not limited 
to conformity assessment procedures. A ``standards-related activity'' 
includes an action taken for the purpose of developing, promulgating, 
revising, amending, issuing or reissuing, interpreting, implementing or 
otherwise maintaining or applying such a standard. When released for a 
``standards-related activity,'' ``technology'' or ``software'' is not 
subject to the EAR provided it meets at least one condition in both 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) The ``technology'' or ``software'' is:
    (i) Designated EAR99;
    (ii) Controlled on the CCL for anti-terrorism reasons only; or
    (iii) For the following ECCN ``items'' level paragraphs of 
``technology'' or ``software'' specifically for the ``development,'' 
``production,'' or ``use'' of cryptographic functionality once the 
release is for a ``standards-related activity:'' ``software'' that is 
classified under ECCN 5D002.b or 5D002.c.1 (for equipment specified in 
ECCN 5A002.a and 5A002.c only); ``technology'' that is classified under 
ECCN 5E002 (for equipment specified in ECCN 5A002.a, .b and .c); and 
``technology'' for software controlled under ECCN 5D002.b or .c.1 (for 
equipment specified in ECCN 5A002.a and .c only) when the release is 
for a ``standards-related activity;'' and
    (2) The ``standards-related activity:''
    (i) Is for a ``published'' standard; or
    (ii) Occurs with the intent that the resulting standard will be 
``published.''

PART 744--CONTROL POLICY: END-USER AND END-USE BASED

0
4. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 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. 13020, 
61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 
CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., 
p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; 3 CFR, 
2022 Comp., p. 563; Notice of September 7, 2023, 88 FR 62439 
(September 11, 2023); Notice of November 1, 2023, 88 FR 75475 
(November 3, 2023).


0
5. Section 744.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  744.11  License requirements that apply to entities acting 
contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the 
United States.

* * * * *
    (a) License requirement, availability of license exceptions, and 
license application review policy. A license is required, to the extent 
specified on the Entity List, to export, reexport, or transfer (in-
country) any item subject to the EAR when an entity that is listed on 
the Entity List is a party to the transaction as described in Sec.  
748.5(c) through (f) of the EAR unless otherwise authorized or excluded 
in this section. License exceptions may not be used unless authorized 
in the Entity List entry for the entity that is party to the 
transaction. Applications for licenses required by this section will be 
evaluated as stated in the Entity List entry for the entity that is 
party to the transaction, in addition to any other applicable review 
policy stated elsewhere in the EAR.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 744.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  744.16   ENTITY LIST

* * * * *
    (a) License requirements. In addition to the license requirements 
for items specified on the CCL, you may not, without a license from 
BIS, export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any items included in 
the License Requirement column of an entity's entry on the Entity List 
(supplement no. 4 to this part) when that entity is a party to a 
transaction as described in Sec.  748.5(c) through (f) of the EAR. The 
specific license requirement for each listed entity is identified in 
the license requirement column on the Entity List in supplement no. 4 
to this part.
* * * * *

[[Page 58274]]


0
7. Supplement no. 4 to part 744 is amended by revising the introductory 
text to read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--Entity List

    This supplement lists certain entities subject to license 
requirements for specified items under this part 744 and part 746 of 
the EAR. License requirements for these entities include exports, 
reexports, and transfers (in-country) unless otherwise stated. A 
license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to 
export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any item subject to the 
EAR when an entity that is listed on the Entity List is a party to 
the transaction as described in Sec.  748.5(c) through (f). of the 
EAR This list of entities is revised and updated on a periodic basis 
in this Supplement by adding new or amended notifications and 
deleting notifications no longer in effect.
* * * * *

PART 772--DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

0
8. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 772 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 
783.


0
9. Section 772.1 is amended by
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Standards-related activity.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  772.1  Definitions of Terms as Used In the Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR).

* * * * *
    Standards-related activity. See Sec.  734.10 of the EAR.
* * * * *

Thea D. Rozman Kendler,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024-15810 Filed 7-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P