SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers the ITAR (22 CFR parts 120 through 130) to, among other things, regulate the export, reexport, retransfer, and temporary import of the defense articles and defense services identified on the USML at 22 CFR 121.1. Items not subject to the ITAR or to the exclusive licensing jurisdiction of certain other departments or agencies of the U.S. Government are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774, which includes the Commerce Control List (CCL) in supplement no. 1 to part 774). The EAR is administered by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The changes proposed by this rule would not modify the list of defense articles and defense services controlled for purposes of permanent import by the Attorney General, as enumerated on the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL) at 27 CFR 447.21.

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778), the authority from which the ITAR is derived, requires periodic review to determine what articles and services, if any, no longer warrant designation on the USML at ITAR § 121.1. Further, Executive Order 14268 directs the Department to focus ITAR protections “. . . on our most sensitive and sophisticated technologies . . .” DDTC's Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy (DTCP) identifies articles and services for potential removal from or addition to the USML, or clarification on how they are described on the USML, through a variety of methods, including public feedback and interagency consultations, commodity jurisdiction reviews, advisory opinions, and technology monitoring. The Department maintains the USML such that it is composed of those defense articles or defense services that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. The Department, informed by consultations with its interagency partners, assesses that the items this rule proposes to remove from the USML no longer meet this standard, and therefore proposes to transfer them to the jurisdiction of the EAR.

This rule proposes the removal of items ranging from specific types of items to much broader sets of items described in catch-all controls ( i.e., controls that refer to unspecified parts, components, accessories, or attachments if they are specially designed for an enumerated item; see § 120.42(g)). It also proposes to create a new exemption from the licensing requirements of the ITAR for the temporary export of a foreign defense article to its foreign manufacturer. In addition, the Department proposes to revise parts 120 and 121 to improve the clarity, consistency, and syntax of the regulatory text, and to align with evolving technologies and update internal references within the USML, with no change in the scope of the regulation.

The Department invites feedback from industry and other interested parties on revisions proposed by this rule, which are further explained in this supplementary information. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at www.regulations.gov.

Proposed Changes to Part 120

§ 120.31—Defense Article

To clarify the definition of defense article at § 120.31, the Department proposes to restructure, revise, and relocate paragraph (b) to new paragraphs in § 120.35. These changes would clarify the terms “basic marketing information on function or purpose” and “general system descriptions” in proposed paragraphs § 120.35(b)(1) and (2), with no intended change in scope. Additional details are included in the section of this preamble discussing changes to § 120.35.

§ 120.32—Defense Service

The Department proposes to revise the definition of defense service in § 120.32 by adding a cross-reference in paragraph (a) to proposed § 120.35, which would exclude certain services from the USML. Additional details are included in the section of this preamble discussing changes to § 120.35.

§ 120.33—Technical Data

The Department proposes to revise the definition of technical data in § 120.33 by moving the last sentence in paragraph (a)(1) to a new note 1 to paragraph (a)(1). The Department proposes this move, and minor revisions for clarity, as the list of examples in the sentence is a subset of the definition, which includes information in all forms.

§ 120.35—Items That Are Excluded From the U.S. Munitions List

The Department proposes to remove the reserved § 120.35 and add a new § 120.35 to identify certain items that would be excluded from control under the ITAR. Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) would exclude certain items from the § 120.31 definition of defense article.

Proposed paragraph (a) would clarify specific circumstances in which, ( printed page 62362) following demilitarization, certain commodities are no longer described in a USML paragraph that uses the term “specially designed.” In analyzing whether an article has been modified such that it is no longer described on the USML, practitioners must assess whether all characteristics that made the item a defense article have been permanently removed. This may require specific development and engineering knowledge from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Removing all components described on the USML ( e.g., armor and weapons) may be insufficient if, for example, structural elements or other features remain that result in the article continuing to be described on the USML.

Consider, for example, a helicopter that was designed to deliver munitions. Such aircraft are described in USML Category VIII, even if the specific aircraft is now used exclusively for fighting wildfires, as it has an airframe that was designed to meet the requirements for delivering munitions. Removing components supporting that function ( e.g., hard points, ballistically tolerant systems, weapons, and mission systems) would not remove all the airframe properties that were included in the design to support the vertical stub-wing loads for carrying munitions and the horizontal stub-wing loads to accommodate forces from munitions launches. Such a helicopter still has properties that are only in its design to enable the delivery of munitions, and thus it remains described in USML Category VIII.

An example of an article that has been modified such that it is no longer a defense article described in USML Category VII(b) would be a vehicle variant designed to launch missiles, from which all of its weapons, mission systems, and armor have been removed such that the remaining vehicle chassis and systems are also common to variants of the same vehicle that were not designed as a firing or launch platform. Specifically, provided the vehicle no longer has defense articles incorporated, and no properties that meet paragraph (a)(1) of § 120.41 in the context of USML Category VII(b), it would no longer be described therein.

Proposed paragraph (b) would revise the text relocated from § 120.31(b), with no intended change to the scope of control, to better describe the information this paragraph excludes from the defense article definition.

§ 120.41—Specially Designed

The Department proposes revisions to paragraph (b) of the definition of specially designed in § 120.41. Specifically, the Department proposes to revise paragraph (b)(3), with no change to the scope of control, to add and reserve paragraph (b)(6) to prevent conflation with paragraph (b)(6) in the EAR's parallel definition, to add paragraphs (b)(7) and (8) to reduce the scope of items designated on the USML, and to make conforming changes to the notes to paragraph (b).

In paragraph (b)(3), the Department proposes to remove the phrase “and fit” as an artifact of language that has no practical effect and has caused confusion among practitioners. Specifically, the definition of equivalent at § 120.42(e) requires a difference in fit. Thus, the Department assesses the correct term is “equivalent form” when referring to a change in form solely for fit purposes. Stated another way, if the fit is the same, any change in form would not be for fit purposes and thus would not be equivalent.

The Department proposes to revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) to account for the proposed revisions to the definitions of production and development. This change is intended to have no effect on the scope of the controls, as the current and proposed text both require that production has begun and development has ended.

Additionally, the Department proposes to add paragraph (b)(7) to § 120.41 to prevent certain items from being described in a catch-all control on the USML. Specifically, the Department is proposing to remove from the USML certain items originally designed for a defense article that were not described on the USML within the first year after leaving development but are later used, without modification, in another defense article that results in their post hoc description on the USML in a catch-all control. The proposed paragraph (b)(7) would establish distinct conditions in which an article would not meet the ITAR's “specially designed” definition despite its subsequent use in or with additional defense articles if it did not meet the definition initially and all modifications for subsequent use were solely for fit purposes.

This new exclusion from the USML via the specially designed definition is intended to ensure that the ITAR does not inadvertently control articles that were designed and produced for defense articles with no catch-all control on the USML and are later used in defense articles with a catch-all control on the USML. For example, consider a component originally developed for an electronic support system described in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of USML Category XI. If the component is not described elsewhere on the USML, it is subject to the EAR and described in Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 3A611.x. Years later, the unmodified component is reused in an electronic support system specially designed for a naval submarine described in paragraph (a)(1) of USML Category XX, which has a catch-all control in paragraph (c) of Category XX. In the context of that catch-all control, the component meets the definition of “specially designed” in ITAR § 120.41(a)(2) as a component for use in or with the Category XX(a)(1) submersible. It does not meet the criteria in the current carve-out language in paragraphs (b)(3) through (5) of § 120.41 because it was developed exclusively for a defense article and is still used only in defense articles. As a result, the component previously subject to the EAR becomes described on the USML in Category XX(c) solely due to its subsequent use in a Category XX(a)(1) submersible. New paragraph § 120.41(b)(7) would ensure such a component is not described in USML Category XX(c) if it has the same or equivalent form when comparing the versions used in each defense article.

Additionally, the Department proposes to add paragraph (b)(8), which will expand the list of commodities that are explicitly excluded from catch-all controls on the USML. Proposed paragraph (b)(8) is intended to have a similar effect as paragraph (b)(2). Paragraph (b)(2) currently excludes fasteners and other basic commodities that the Department has determined do not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. However, unlike paragraph (b)(2), paragraph (b)(8) would not have a similar provision in the EAR definition of specially designed. As a result, while commodities described in paragraph (b)(2) are not described in catch-all controls on either the USML or the CCL, being described in paragraph (b)(8) means that a commodity is not described in any catch-all controls on the USML. The Department assesses that the removal of these commodities, which the Department has determined do not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage, would promote U.S. industry participation in a range of international supply chains without adversely affecting U.S. national security.

§ 120.42—Form, Fit, Function, Performance Capability, Equivalent, Enumerated, and Catch-All Control

The Department proposes to clarify the definition of “equivalent” in paragraph (e) of § 120.42 by adding the word “form” to clarify that a commodity has “equivalent form” when its form ( printed page 62363) has been modified solely for fit purposes. This is intended to provide clearer guidance and reinforce that the reason for the form change is what is being assessed, not the fit. The Department also proposes to adjust the heading of § 120.42 to reflect that adjustment in terminology defined therein.

§ 120.43—Development, Production, and Related Terms; Basic and Applied Research

The Department proposes revising paragraphs (a) and (b) in § 120.43 to provide greater clarity on the scope of the development and production phases in the product lifecycle. The proposed revisions to § 120.43 add subparagraphs to paragraph (a) that detail specific development activities, while noting when development ends, and correct the structure of paragraph (b).

The proposed revisions would amend paragraph (a) to clarify the definition of development. Note this rule uses the name “Department of Defense” (DoD) as opposed to the “Department of War,” as the name of the agency designated with these authorities in the Arms Export Control Act, which the ITAR partially implements. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would maintain that development concludes when design is finalized and tested to support serial production (or its equivalent), with all key design decisions, integration, and validation activities complete. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would relocate language from current paragraph (b)(2) and clarify existing provisions that routine enhancements to sustainability, reliability, maintainability, quality improvements, cost reductions, or feature enhancements do not restart the development cycle for articles already in production. These revisions would also provide that cosmetic changes do not restart the development cycle.

Similarly, a portion of current paragraph (b)(1) would be moved to the unused paragraph (b) and revised for clarity. Paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to refine the definition, with adjustments to encompass equivalents to serial production. Having moved a portion of the existing scope of current paragraph (b)(2) to proposed paragraph (a)(3), the Department proposes to revise paragraph (b)(2) to provide more precise guidance on when post-production modifications constitute development versus production activities, distinguishing between routine enhancements that remain in production status and changes that alter function or performance capabilities that restart the development cycle. These revisions are intended to harmonize the definitions and resolve classification uncertainty during product transitions.

§ 120.54—Activities That Are Not Exports, Reexports, Retransfers, or Temporary Imports

The Department proposes to revise the language in § 120.54(a)(1) to clarify that for the launch of a defense article out of the United States to not constitute an export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import under the ITAR, the defense article must be launched into or beyond orbit. The Department proposes this change for transparency and regulatory clarity and consistent with the scope of the current language, as launches into space that do not reach orbit and return directly to the United States are not currently exports (see § 120.54(a)(4)). The proposed revisions would provide a clear criterion for determining which launches are included in this regulatory provision, as the term “into space” is not defined.

Proposed Changes to Part 121

USML Category II—Guns and Armament

The Department proposes to narrow USML Category II(a)(4) to remove smooth-bore, fixed-barrel canister launchers. This change would remove the less-lethal and less-precise canister launchers from the USML while retaining grenade launchers with rifled or removable barrels. The Department assesses the items proposed for removal no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage.

USML Category VIII—Aircraft and Related Articles

The Department proposes to remove and reserve USML Category VIII(h)(10), which would remove most radar altimeters from the USML, based on its assessment these items no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage.

USML Category X—Personal Protective Equipment

The Department proposes to modify USML Category X(a)(7) to adjust the control text parameters to remove from the USML certain goggles, spectacles, visors, vision blocks, canopies, or filters for optical sights or viewers that it assesses no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. The Department also proposes to remove the parenthetical examples as unnecessary. Additionally, the Department requests public comments on ways to further refine the scope and clarity of paragraph (a)(7) and the related controls in paragraph (d)(3).

USML Category XX—Submersible Vessels and Related Articles

The Department proposes to revise USML Category XX(c) in several ways. First, the Department proposes to restructure paragraph (c) by moving the items described therein into three new subparagraphs (1) through (3). Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would clarify controls on items specially designed for naval nuclear propulsion plants or facilities described in paragraph (b)(1) and newly designate them as Significant Military Equipment (SME), consistent with related paragraph (f)(5) of USML Category VI. Proposed new paragraph (c)(2) would describe the remaining systems and equipment currently described in paragraph (c). The remaining catch-all control in current paragraph (c), for items other than nuclear propulsion, would move to proposed paragraph (c)(3).

In addition, the Department proposes to narrow what would be described in proposed paragraph (c)(2) by replacing the single broad paragraph with multiple focused subparagraphs. Currently, paragraph (c) describes all specially designed parts, components, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for military submersible and semi-submersible vehicles, which is one of the broadest control paragraphs on the USML. The Department assesses that certain articles described by this paragraph do not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. Although the proposed changes would increase the number of subparagraphs to paragraph (c)(2), their addition would significantly narrow the scope of controls currently implemented through paragraph (c).

Proposed Changes to Part 123

§ 123.26—Temporary Export for Servicing or Repair of Foreign Defense Articles

The Department proposes a new exemption to ITAR licensing requirements at § 123.26 to allow the temporary export of foreign defense articles from the United States when the export is solely for certain activities, such as servicing or repair by the OEM or its authorized service provider. An export license would not be required when specific conditions are met, including that the defense article is unclassified and is temporarily exported from the United States to the OEM or its authorized service provider for specific authorized activities. This exemption from export licensing requirements does not relate to the import requirements that may be imposed by the United States Munitions Import List (USMIL), ( printed page 62364) found at 27 CFR part 447, which is administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice. The Department assesses this change would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining appropriate controls on sensitive items.

Updating of Licenses and Agreements

As part of the Department's USML modernization efforts, the USML classification for some defense articles and defense services would change or be removed. Consistent with prior revisions of USML categories, additional guidance on the treatment of such items, including the impact of the change on the treatment of items previously exported under an ITAR license, is provided on DDTC's website.

Request for Comments

Comments Requested

Consistent with its ongoing USML review process, the Department is requesting public comments on the revisions proposed in this rulemaking. In particular, the Department is requesting comment on ways to streamline the descriptions and criteria on the USML, so that it may continue to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests while benefitting U.S. industry and international partners. Describing items more precisely could lower administrative burdens and regulatory compliance costs and present an opportunity for increased exports, thus bolstering the U.S. commercial sector and industrial base.

The Department encourages the public to provide both comments directly related to this proposed rule and responses to the questions presented in the rule. To facilitate timely review and assessment of comments, the Department recommends beginning with a concise summary sentence or paragraph, followed by explanations and supporting facts or evidence. Multiple comments should be submitted in separate paragraphs from each other. The Department specifically requests comments focused on the following questions:

1. Paragraph (a)(7) of USML Category X describes certain ocular personal protective equipment “employing other than common broadband absorptive dyes or UV inhibitors as a means of protection,” and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples. The Department requests comments on the following questions to assist in refining the scope and clarity of paragraph (a)(7) and the related controls in paragraph (d)(3).

a. Are there other specific functions, performance levels, or characteristics that could better delineate the ocular protection items on the USML from those widely available for civil applications such as laboratory work and manufacturing?

b. How useful do you find the optical density criterion? Should the thresholds be different for paragraphs (a)(7)(i), (ii), and (iii)? What is involved in changing the application process for a specific dye to reliably achieve greater optical density, and how challenging is it to make those changes?

c. Would a percentage of visible light transmission (VLT) be a useful criterion for distinguishing capabilities for this equipment? Please provide examples of VLT for ocular protection used in civil applications and that used in military applications.

2. The Department previously noted in 90 FR 41778 that paragraph (c)(10)(iv) of USML Category XI is not intended to describe antennas developed exclusively for civil airborne weather radar. If there are specific examples of antennas developed exclusively for civil airborne weather radar currently described therein, the Department requests detailed examples and technical criteria it could use to differentiate these antennas from other antennas described in paragraph (c)(10).

3. The Department emphasizes that paragraph (x) within the various categories of the USML is not an export classification. Instead, it serves as a mechanism to streamline export licensing by enabling a unified method to apply for an authorization to export both articles subject to the ITAR and related items subject to the EAR. Practitioners can utilize paragraph (x) to simplify the licensing process for such mixed shipments involving items controlled under both regulatory frameworks. The Department invites public comment on ways to enhance clarity and understanding for practitioners to avoid the erroneous application of this paragraph while maintaining this paragraph's ease of use and understanding.

4. The Department is considering removing references to “software” from paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (b)(3), and (b)(5) of the specially designed definition at § 120.41, as well as modifying paragraph (a) to read “Except for commodities described in paragraph (b) of this section, a commodity or software is specially designed if . . .” With this potential revision, an (a)(1) analysis would remain applicable to software, but the (a)(2) and (b) analyses would not. (Note that this proposed change would affect only USML entries where software is described as specially designed and not where software is described as technical data—which uses the definition at § 120.33(a)(4).) The Department is considering this change to address the implementation reality that system- and equipment-level controls, such as those in USML Category XI(b), generally do not release software despite the text of § 120.41(b). It would also be counterintuitive to potentially control software via § 120.41(a) because it was designed explicitly for intelligence purposes, then not do so via § 120.41(b)(4) merely because it was developed to run on both defense articles and EAR items. Specifically, in the case of software, even when portions of the code meet the text of § 120.41(b), the see-through rule at § 120.11(c) continues to control portions of the code that do not meet the text of § 120.41(b) and § 120.33(a)(4) continues to apply to software described in the technical data paragraphs that are directly related to the combined system or equipment (consisting of (1) the software running (2) on hardware subject to the EAR). Removing “software” from the specified paragraphs would ensure that software designations are applied more consistently by practitioners, consistent with the software's intended national security purpose. The Department invites comments on this potential revision, including locations within the regulations where practitioners would find guidance on reviewing software most useful.

5. The Department invites comments on the following questions to assist in refining the scope and clarity of the development and production phases in the product lifecycle, as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 120.43:

a. The Department considered using Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and DoD Acquisition Milestones; however, they only generally align with the development and production phases and the definitions apply broadly outside of DoD acquisitions. For example, in DoD Major Capability Acquisitions, the Milestone C decision generally aligns with the decision to enter into the Production and Deployment Phase; however, for the purposes of the ITAR, the Milestone C decision does not necessarily indicate the end of the development phase. The end of the development phase, for the purposes of the ITAR, is more aligned with entrance into Full Rate Production or equivalent production at scale. To what extent would you find an accompanying note to the definitions beneficial, if it only identifies general ( printed page 62365) DoD TRL or milestone alignments (and is thus not determinative)?

b. Do you believe the proposed definitions provide sufficient clarity for applicability or would other types of references be useful in the definition or explanatory notes? For example, do they sufficiently address the continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) or custom-build contexts?

c. Are there any other product lifecycle scenarios you believe these definitions do not fully address or incorrectly address?

6. Proposed paragraph (b) of § 120.35 is intended to relocate and more clearly identify the provision in § 120.31(b) that “basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions” is excluded from the definition of a defense article, with no change in scope. The Department welcomes suggestions on ways to further enhance clarity of the proposed paragraph (b) of § 120.35 and any perceived change in scope from the existing text.

7. Are there commodities, services, or technical data closely related to the proposed revisions that warrant ITAR control, but are currently either not described on the USML, or not described with sufficient clarity? If so, please provide examples and a concise explanation.

8. Are there specific commodities, services, or technical data described on the USML following these proposed revisions that are, or have previously been, in normal commercial use, that were previously removed from the USML, or that were previously determined not to be subject to the ITAR via a commodity jurisdiction determination issued pursuant to § 120.12? If so, please include supporting documentation.

9. Are there specific commodities, services, or technical data described on the USML following these proposed revisions for which civil use is proposed, intended, or anticipated in the next five years? Please include supporting documentation and a point of contact familiar with the details.

10. Are there specific articles or services described on the USML following these proposed revisions with such widespread foreign availability that they, and their directly related technical data and defense services, do not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage? Please include supporting documentation and a point of contact familiar with the details.

11. Are there specific functions, performance levels, or characteristics related to these proposed revisions that could better:

a. Distinguish between the commodities that do, and do not, warrant ITAR control;

b. Delineate the criteria for control, in lieu of using the term “specially designed”; or

c. Align with the constructions or language used in other USML entries?

12. Can any of these revisions be more concisely stated?

13. Are these revisions unclear to you in any way? For example, please identify any:

a. Terms that you find ambiguous in definition or context; or

b. Constructions or regulatory text that varies from existing USML paragraphs.

14. Are there other technical issues directly related to these paragraphs which you believe the Department should address in future rulemaking?

Comment Submission Instructions

Include the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (1400-AF40) or agency name and docket number for all submissions related to this rule. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by submitting their comments via www.regulations.gov, leaving the fields that would identify the commenter blank and including no identifying information in the comment itself. Commenters are cautioned not to include proprietary, export-controlled, or other sensitive information that they are not comfortable making public in their comments. If such information would provide useful insight to the comment, (1) assemble that information in a separate document with proprietary markings; (2) include “Proprietary supplement on file with: [provide Point of Contact]” as the first line in the body of the email submission; (3) submit the public portion of the comment via email; and (4) call DDTC at (202) 663-1282 to coordinate submission of the proprietary supplement.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

Administrative Procedure Act

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. Nevertheless, and without prejudice to this determination, the Department elects to seek public comment on this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132

This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, directs 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, distributed impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department specifically welcomes public comment on the impact, including costs and benefits, of this rule. After review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this rule has been deemed a significant regulatory action.

This rule was undertaken pursuant to a statutory directive to periodically review the items on the USML. The Department generally determines which items warrant addition to, or removal from, the USML by assessing whether each provides a critical military or intelligence advantage based on national security and foreign policy considerations. Because the costs and benefits of changing what is controlled focus on the effect or utility of the item or service, rather than its market prevalence or economic value, quantitative analyses cannot be usefully estimated and are not available, particularly since the global prevalence or availability of the item or service are ( printed page 62366) not known. Moreover, the Department does not have useful estimates or models to predict whether or how frequently the items added to the USML by this rule will be applied for export or to which countries, or for temporary import and from which countries. Qualitatively, this rule was assessed for costs and benefits. Because listing individual items or model numbers would necessarily lead to incomplete controls when an item is renamed or slightly modified, the USML contains many descriptive controls that are based on broader characteristics, including form, fit, function, and performance capability. To more accurately describe only what the Department intends to control, and to provide companies and individuals with better certainty, some USML revisions made by this rule are intended to clarify and otherwise improve various entries and to more precisely focus controls. These revisions are also informed by confidential commodity jurisdiction determination and advisory opinion requests submitted by industry. The Department considers common questions and strives to streamline and simplify USML entries based on and consistent with industry's experience parsing the USML.

The Department assesses that the benefits of this rulemaking outweigh any costs, that modifying the USML in this manner is the most cost-effective method to achieve the Department's regulatory objectives on this matter, and that doing so will result in a net reduction of the burden on the regulated community.

Executive Order 13175

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Order 14192

This rule is exempt from Executive Order 14192 as it is a regulation issued with respect to a foreign affairs or national security function of the United States.

Executive Order 12988

The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2778, the Department of State proposes to amend 22 CFR parts 120, 121, and 123, the United States Munitions List, as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a, 2752, 2753, 2776, 2778, 2779, 2779a, 2785, 2794, 2797; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 223.

2. Amend § 120.31 by revising paragraph (a) and removing and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:

3. Amend § 120.32 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

4. Amend §  120.33 by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding note 1 to paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

5. Add § 120.35 to read as follows:

6. Amend § 120.41 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

7. Amend § 120.42 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

8. Amend §  120.43 by revising paragraph (a) and (b) to read as follows:

9. Amend § 120.54 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

10. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Sec. 1514, Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 2175; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 223.

11. Amend §  121.1 as follows:

a. In Category II, revise paragraph (a)(4);

b. In Category VIII, remove and reserve paragraph (h)(10);

c. In Category X, revise paragraph (a)(7) and Note 1 to paragraph (a)(7); and

d. In Category XX, revise paragraph (c).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

12. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2753; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2776; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920; Sec. 1205(a), Pub. L. 107-228; Sec. 520, Pub. L. 112-55; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112-239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.

13. Add § 123.26 to read as follows:

91 FR 62361