[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: [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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