Request for Comments Regarding Review of United States Munitions List Categories IV and XV, 8486-8487 [2019-04269]
Download as PDF
8486
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 46 / Friday, March 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Request for Comments
1. For technologies controlled under
ECCN 9A515—examples include
habitats, planetary rovers, and planetary
systems such as communications and
power—what factors or specific
technologies should be considered for
movement to a different ECCN or
paragraph under ECCN 9A515 with less
stringent licensing requirements?
2. The USG is considering further
refinement or updated controls on the
various technologies listed below. Are
there additional specific space-related
technologies not described in the list
which warrant further review by State
or Commerce given their current or
anticipated near term commercial
applications?
Æ Satellite thrusters (bi-propellant,
electric, and liquid apogee engines);
Æ gyroscopes;
Æ inertial navigation systems;
Æ large aperture earth observation
cameras;
Æ spacecraft antenna systems and
adaptive Global Navigation Satellite
System (GNSS) antennas;
Æ suborbital systems with propulsion
systems currently controlled under
USML;
Æ kapton tape;
Æ star trackers; and
Æ astrocompasses.
3. NASA continues to pursue
development of the future Lunar
Gateway, which may be described in
USML Category XV(a). If moved to the
CCL, what would be the appropriate
controls to apply to items associated
with the Lunar Gateway, e.g., ECCNs
9A515 or 9A004?
4. Are there technologies controlled in
the USML for either Category IV and
XV, which are not currently described
or not described with sufficient clarity
which the commenter believes should
be controlled under the EAR? While this
notice discusses specific items based on
initial communications with industry,
the list is not exhaustive and
commenters are encouraged to provide
additional examples within both USML
categories.
5. Are there specific defense articles
which have entered into normal
commercial use since the most recent
revisions? If so, please provide
sufficient detail in describing and
identifying the article to support your
claim. Commenters may include
documentation to support this claim,
e.g., product information demonstrating
what is currently in the market (web
pages describing products and product
brochures), or scientific and industry
articles, in particular those also
describing trends in commercial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Mar 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
products, that resulted from new
technologies or manufacturing methods.
6. Are there defense articles for which
commercial use is proposed, intended,
or anticipated in the next five years? If
so, provide sufficient detail in
describing and identifying the article to
support your claim. Commenters may
include documentation to support this
claim, e.g., product development or
marketing information describing what
products will soon to be in the market
(web pages describing products under
development, press releases related to
products under development) or
scientific and industry articles, in
particular those describing new
products that may soon enter the market
place as a result of new technologies or
manufacturing methods.
7. Are there other technical issues for
these items which BIS should address,
e.g., the addition of technical notes or
defined terms used in the control
parameters to make the controls easier
to understand and apply consistently?
8. What are the cost savings to private
entities by shifting control of additional
specific commercial items from the
USML to the CCL? To the extent
possible, please quantify the current
cost of compliance with USML control
of an item and any cost savings if a
particular change was implemented.
Cost savings could include time saved
in terms of regulatory uncertainty over
whether certain items are regulated as
on the USML or the CCL. This reduced
uncertainty, under the ‘‘bright line’’
approach of the USML to CCL review
process, would allow both BIS and
industry to avoid spending hours and
resources on case by case
determinations for certain items. As
much as possible, please quantify time
saved, reduction in compliance costs,
and reduction in paperwork.
Please note general comments on
other aspects of the CCL are outside of
the scope of this inquiry.
Dated: February 22, 2019.
Richard E. Ashooh,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019–04268 Filed 3–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 121
[Public Notice 10568; Docket Number DOS–
2018–0048]
RIN 1400–AE73
Request for Comments Regarding
Review of United States Munitions List
Categories IV and XV
Department of State.
Advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking; request for comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
As part of its work with the
National Space Council, the Department
of State requests comments from the
public to inform its review of the
controls implemented in recent
revisions to Categories IV and XV of the
United States Munitions List (USML).
The Department periodically reviews
USML categories to ensure that they are
clear, do not inadvertently control items
in normal commercial use, account for
technological developments, and
properly implement the national
security and foreign policy objectives of
the United States.
DATES: The Department will accept
comments up to April 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Email: DDTCPublicComments@
state.gov. Please include ‘‘USML
Categories IV and XV’’ in the subject
line.
• Internet: At www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for sending
comments using docket number, DOS–
2018–0048.
Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov will be visible to
other members of the public; the
Department will publish all comments
on the Directorate of Defense Trade
Controls website
(www.pmddtc.state.gov). Therefore,
commenters are cautioned not to
include proprietary or other sensitive
information in their comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert Monjay, Office of Defense Trade
Controls Policy, Department of State,
telephone (202) 663–2817; email
publiccomments@state.gov. ATTN:
Request for Comments Regarding
Review of USML Categories IV and XV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One
advantage of revising the USML into a
more positive list is its controls can be
tailored to satisfy the national security
and foreign policy objectives of the U.S.
government by maintaining control over
those articles that provide a critical
military or intelligence advantage, or
otherwise warrant control under the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 46 / Friday, March 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR), without
inadvertently controlling items in
normal commercial use. This approach,
however, requires that the list be
regularly revised and updated to
account for technological developments,
practical application issues identified
by exporters and reexporters, and
changes in the military and commercial
applications of items affected by the list.
Request for Comments
Consistent with the objectives in
Space Policy Directive-2 (see https://
www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/space-policy-directive-2streamlining-regulations-commercialuse-space/) the Department is
requesting public comments on USML
Categories IV (Launch Vehicles) and XV
(Spacecraft). In particular, the
Department is requesting comment on
ways to thoughtfully streamline export
control regulations for these categories
for the benefit of U.S. industry as well
as our international partners.
Streamlining controls could lower
administrative burden and regulatory
compliance costs and present the
opportunity for increased exports, thus
bolstering the U.S. space commercial
sector and industrial base.
For reference, Category IV was most
recently fully revised on July 1, 2014
(see 79 FR 34, Jan. 2, 2014). Category XV
was most recently revised on January
15, 2017 (see 82 FR 2889, Jan. 10, 2017).
In order for your comments to be most
useful, the Department encourages the
public to provide comments responsive
to the prompts described below. Please
note general comments on other aspects
of the ITAR, to include other categories
of the USML, are outside of the scope
of this inquiry. In particular, the
Department requests comments on the
following.
1. Are there emerging or new
technologies that warrant control in one
of the referenced categories, but which
are not currently described or not
described with sufficient clarity?
2. Are there specific defense articles
described in the referenced categories
that have entered into normal
commercial use since the most recent
revision of that category? If so, please
include documentation to support this
claim.
3. Are there defense articles described
in the referenced categories for which
commercial use is proposed, intended,
or anticipated in the next five years? If
so, please provide any documentation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Mar 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
4. Are there other technical issues for
these categories which the Department
should address?
5. The export control system uses the
size of space-based optical telescopes as
the technical parameter differentiating
between items controlled by the
Department of Commerce in Commerce
Control List (CCL) Export Control
Classification Number (ECCN)
9A515.a.1and by the Department of
State in USML Category XV(a)(7) and
XV(e)(2). This is based on physics, and
specifically the fact that larger optical
telescopes generally can generate
higher-resolution images than smaller
ones. NASA tends to use larger optical
telescopes for astrophysics missions
because the celestial bodies these
missions observe are many light years
away, and smaller optical capabilities
cannot physically meet the relevant
science requirements. At the same time,
because NASA missions are designed
and calibrated to observe distant
celestial objects, they are physically
incapable of observing the Earth, which
is so bright relative to distant objects
that NASA’s telescopes would suffer
permanent physical damage if pointed
at Earth. Essentially, NASA astrophysics
missions form a class of spacecraft
which meet the technical definition for
national security-sensitive spacecraft
regulated by the Department of State,
but are incapable of observing the Earth.
In the past, this issue has been
addressed by creating separate
regulatory categories for specific
missions. For example, the James Webb
Space Telescope, NASA’s next flagship
astrophysics mission, was the subject of
specific regulatory activity (see, 82 FR
2875 and 2889, Jan. 10, 2017) to ensure
that it is controlled by the Department
of Commerce under ECCN 9A004 even
though it otherwise meets the control
text of USML Category XV. However,
since it would be impractical to issue an
updated regulation every time NASA
initiates a new astrophysics mission, the
Department is seeking comments from
the public on a way to provide technical
differentiation within U.S. export
control regulations between the spacebased optical telescopes for astrophysics
missions and those used for Earth
observation.
6. The control in USML Category
XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2) is based, in part,
on the size of the clear aperture of the
telescope’s optics. However, not all
space-based telescopes use a discshaped viewer and thus it is not always
possible to definitively determine the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8487
size of the ‘‘clear aperture’’ of a specific
space-based electro-optical/infrared
(E.O./IR) remote sensing system for the
purpose of the regulations. Are there
suggested revisions that would clarify
the scope of Categories XV(a)(7) and
XV(e)(2), such as a definition of ‘‘clear
aperture’’?
7. Many spacecraft are designed to
provide supplies to the International
Space Station and other future space
stations. This activity is commonly
referred to as ‘‘servicing’’ the space
stations, which is an activity that can
lead to USML control under Category
XV(a)(12). Are there suggested revisions
that would clarify the scope of this
paragraph, such as a definition of
‘‘servicing’’?
8. NASA continues to pursue
development of the future Lunar
Gateway, which may be described in
Category XV(a). Are there any public
comments regarding the potential
control status of the future Lunar
Gateway?
9. What are the cost savings to private
entities from shifting control of a
suggested specific item from USML to
the CCL? To the extent possible, please
quantify the current cost of compliance
with USML control of an item and any
cost savings if a particular change was
implemented. Cost savings could
include time saved in terms of
regulatory uncertainty over whether a
certain item is regulated as on the
USML or the CCL. This reduced
uncertainty, under the ‘‘bright line’’
approach described in the
Administration’s Export Reform
Initiative, would allow both State and
industry to avoid spending hours and
resources on case by case
determinations for certain items. As
much as possible, please quantify time
saved, reduction in compliance costs,
and reduction in paperwork for a
particular change.
The Department will review all
comments from the public. If a
rulemaking is warranted based on the
comments received, the Department will
respond to comments received in a
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register.
Dated: March 1, 2019.
Sarah Heidema,
Director, Defense Trade Control Policy Office,
U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2019–04269 Filed 3–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–25–P
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8486-8487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04269]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 121
[Public Notice 10568; Docket Number DOS-2018-0048]
RIN 1400-AE73
Request for Comments Regarding Review of United States Munitions
List Categories IV and XV
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of its work with the National Space Council, the
Department of State requests comments from the public to inform its
review of the controls implemented in recent revisions to Categories IV
and XV of the United States Munitions List (USML). The Department
periodically reviews USML categories to ensure that they are clear, do
not inadvertently control items in normal commercial use, account for
technological developments, and properly implement the national
security and foreign policy objectives of the United States.
DATES: The Department will accept comments up to April 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Email: DDTCPublicComments@state.gov. Please include ``USML
Categories IV and XV'' in the subject line.
Internet: At www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for sending comments using docket number, DOS-2018-0048.
Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov will be visible to
other members of the public; the Department will publish all comments
on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls website
(www.pmddtc.state.gov). Therefore, commenters are cautioned not to
include proprietary or other sensitive information in their comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Monjay, Office of Defense
Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2817;
email publiccomments@state.gov. ATTN: Request for Comments Regarding
Review of USML Categories IV and XV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One advantage of revising the USML into a
more positive list is its controls can be tailored to satisfy the
national security and foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government
by maintaining control over those articles that provide a critical
military or intelligence advantage, or otherwise warrant control under
the
[[Page 8487]]
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), without inadvertently
controlling items in normal commercial use. This approach, however,
requires that the list be regularly revised and updated to account for
technological developments, practical application issues identified by
exporters and reexporters, and changes in the military and commercial
applications of items affected by the list.
Request for Comments
Consistent with the objectives in Space Policy Directive-2 (see
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-directive-2-streamlining-regulations-commercial-use-space/) the Department is
requesting public comments on USML Categories IV (Launch Vehicles) and
XV (Spacecraft). In particular, the Department is requesting comment on
ways to thoughtfully streamline export control regulations for these
categories for the benefit of U.S. industry as well as our
international partners. Streamlining controls could lower
administrative burden and regulatory compliance costs and present the
opportunity for increased exports, thus bolstering the U.S. space
commercial sector and industrial base.
For reference, Category IV was most recently fully revised on July
1, 2014 (see 79 FR 34, Jan. 2, 2014). Category XV was most recently
revised on January 15, 2017 (see 82 FR 2889, Jan. 10, 2017). In order
for your comments to be most useful, the Department encourages the
public to provide comments responsive to the prompts described below.
Please note general comments on other aspects of the ITAR, to include
other categories of the USML, are outside of the scope of this inquiry.
In particular, the Department requests comments on the following.
1. Are there emerging or new technologies that warrant control in
one of the referenced categories, but which are not currently described
or not described with sufficient clarity?
2. Are there specific defense articles described in the referenced
categories that have entered into normal commercial use since the most
recent revision of that category? If so, please include documentation
to support this claim.
3. Are there defense articles described in the referenced
categories for which commercial use is proposed, intended, or
anticipated in the next five years? If so, please provide any
documentation.
4. Are there other technical issues for these categories which the
Department should address?
5. The export control system uses the size of space-based optical
telescopes as the technical parameter differentiating between items
controlled by the Department of Commerce in Commerce Control List (CCL)
Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 9A515.a.1and by the
Department of State in USML Category XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2). This is
based on physics, and specifically the fact that larger optical
telescopes generally can generate higher-resolution images than smaller
ones. NASA tends to use larger optical telescopes for astrophysics
missions because the celestial bodies these missions observe are many
light years away, and smaller optical capabilities cannot physically
meet the relevant science requirements. At the same time, because NASA
missions are designed and calibrated to observe distant celestial
objects, they are physically incapable of observing the Earth, which is
so bright relative to distant objects that NASA's telescopes would
suffer permanent physical damage if pointed at Earth. Essentially, NASA
astrophysics missions form a class of spacecraft which meet the
technical definition for national security-sensitive spacecraft
regulated by the Department of State, but are incapable of observing
the Earth.
In the past, this issue has been addressed by creating separate
regulatory categories for specific missions. For example, the James
Webb Space Telescope, NASA's next flagship astrophysics mission, was
the subject of specific regulatory activity (see, 82 FR 2875 and 2889,
Jan. 10, 2017) to ensure that it is controlled by the Department of
Commerce under ECCN 9A004 even though it otherwise meets the control
text of USML Category XV. However, since it would be impractical to
issue an updated regulation every time NASA initiates a new
astrophysics mission, the Department is seeking comments from the
public on a way to provide technical differentiation within U.S. export
control regulations between the space-based optical telescopes for
astrophysics missions and those used for Earth observation.
6. The control in USML Category XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2) is based, in
part, on the size of the clear aperture of the telescope's optics.
However, not all space-based telescopes use a disc-shaped viewer and
thus it is not always possible to definitively determine the size of
the ``clear aperture'' of a specific space-based electro-optical/
infrared (E.O./IR) remote sensing system for the purpose of the
regulations. Are there suggested revisions that would clarify the scope
of Categories XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2), such as a definition of ``clear
aperture''?
7. Many spacecraft are designed to provide supplies to the
International Space Station and other future space stations. This
activity is commonly referred to as ``servicing'' the space stations,
which is an activity that can lead to USML control under Category
XV(a)(12). Are there suggested revisions that would clarify the scope
of this paragraph, such as a definition of ``servicing''?
8. NASA continues to pursue development of the future Lunar
Gateway, which may be described in Category XV(a). Are there any public
comments regarding the potential control status of the future Lunar
Gateway?
9. What are the cost savings to private entities from shifting
control of a suggested specific item from USML to the CCL? To the
extent possible, please quantify the current cost of compliance with
USML control of an item and any cost savings if a particular change was
implemented. Cost savings could include time saved in terms of
regulatory uncertainty over whether a certain item is regulated as on
the USML or the CCL. This reduced uncertainty, under the ``bright
line'' approach described in the Administration's Export Reform
Initiative, would allow both State and industry to avoid spending hours
and resources on case by case determinations for certain items. As much
as possible, please quantify time saved, reduction in compliance costs,
and reduction in paperwork for a particular change.
The Department will review all comments from the public. If a
rulemaking is warranted based on the comments received, the Department
will respond to comments received in a proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register.
Dated: March 1, 2019.
Sarah Heidema,
Director, Defense Trade Control Policy Office, U.S. Department of
State.
[FR Doc. 2019-04269 Filed 3-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P