52622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 

List of Subjects 

21 CFR Part 510 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

21 CFR Parts 520 and 522 

Animal drugs. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to 

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 

CFR parts 510, 520, and 522 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 510 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 

353, 360b, 371, 379e. 

§ 510.600 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 510.600, in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1), remove the entries for 

‘‘Church & Dwight Co., Inc.’’ and 

‘‘Peptech Animal Health Pty, Ltd.’’; and 

in the table in paragraph (c)(2), remove 

the entries for ‘‘010237’’ and ‘‘064288’’. 

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM 

NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 520 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

§ 520.580 [Amended]. 

■ 4. In paragraph (b)(1) of § 520.580, 

remove ‘‘010237,’’. 

§ 520.2043 [Amended] 

■ 5. In paragraph (b)(2) of § 520.2043, 

remove ‘‘010237’’ and in its place add 

‘‘055246’’. 

PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR 

INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 6. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 522 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

■ 7. In § 522.533, revise the section 

heading and paragraph (b), add 

paragraph (c), and remove paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 522.533 Deslorelin. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sponsor. See No. 043264 in 

§ 510.600(c) of this chapter. 

(c) Conditions of use in horses and 

ponies—(1) Amount. One implant per 

mare subcutaneously in the neck. 

(2) Indications for use. For inducing 

ovulation within 48 hours in estrous 

mares with an ovarian follicle greater 

than 30 millimeters in diameter. 

(3) Limitations. Do not use in horses 

or ponies intended for human 

consumption. Federal law restricts this 

drug to use by or on the order of a 

licensed veterinarian. 

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

Bernadette Dunham, 

Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21296 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Parts 124, 125, 126, and 129 

[Public Notice: 7134] 

RIN 1400–AC62 

Amendment to the International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations: Removing 

Requirement for Prior Approval for 

Certain Proposals to Foreign Persons 

Relating to Significant Military 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

amending the International Traffic in 

Arms Regulations (ITAR) to remove the 

requirements for prior approval or prior 

notification for certain proposals to 

foreign persons relating to significant 

military equipment. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective August 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Director Charles Shotwell, Office of 

Defense Trade Controls Policy, 

Department of State, Telephone (202) 

663–2792 or Fax (202) 261–8199; E-mail 

DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: 

Regulatory Change, Section 126.8. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the President’s Export 

Control Reform effort, on March 29, 

2010, the Department published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

to eliminate the requirements for prior 

approval or prior notification for certain 

proposals to foreign persons relating to 

significant military equipment at § 126.8 

of the ITAR. Effective September 1, 

1977, the Department of State amended 

§ 123.16 to require Department of State 

approval before a proposal or 

presentation is made that is designed to 

constitute the basis for a decision to 

purchase significant combat equipment, 

involving the export of an item on the 

U.S. Munitions List, valued at 

$7,000,000 or more for use by the armed 

forces of a foreign country (42 FR 41631, 

dated August 18, 1977). Also, § 124.06, 

entitled, ‘‘Approval of proposals for 

technical assistance and manufacturing 

license agreements,’’ was amended to 

require similar prior approval with 

respect to proposals and presentations 

for technical assistance and 

manufacturing license agreements 

involving the production or assembly of 

significant combat equipment. 

‘‘Proposals to foreign persons relating 

to significant military equipment’’ 

became § 126.8 in a final rule effective 

January 1, 1985 (49 FR 47682, dated 

December 6, 1984). Section 126.8 did 

not require prior approval of the 

Department of State when the proposed 

sale was to the armed forces of a 

member of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO), Australia, Japan, 

or New Zealand, except with respect to 

manufacturing license agreements or 

technical assistance agreements. 

A prior notification requirement, 

instead of prior approval, was added to 

§ 126.8 in a final rule effective March 

31, 1985 (50 FR 12787, dated April 1, 

1985). Prior notification to the 

Department of State was required 30 

days in advance of a proposal or 

presentation to any foreign person 

where such proposals or presentations 

concerned equipment previously 

approved for export. 

The current § 126.8 requires prior 

approval or prior notification for certain 

proposals and presentations to make a 

determination whether to purchase 

significant military equipment valued at 

$14,000,000 or more (other than a 

member of NATO, Australia, New 

Zealand, Japan, or South Korea), or 

whether to enter into a manufacturing 

license agreement or technical 

assistance agreement for the production 

or assembly of significant military 

equipment, regardless of dollar value. 

These types of proposals and 

presentations usually involve large 

dollar amounts. Before the defense 

industry undertakes the effort involved 

in formulating its proposals and 

presentations, if there is any doubt that 

the corresponding license application or 

proposed agreement would be 

authorized by the Department of State, 

the industry may request an advisory 

opinion (see § 126.9). The written 

advisory opinion, though not binding on 

the Department, helps inform the 

defense industry whether the 

Department would likely grant a license 

application or proposed agreement. 

Currently, the time between submitting 

a license application or proposed 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 52623 

agreement and obtaining a decision 

from the Department of State whether to 

authorize such transactions has been 

decreased sufficiently that requiring 

prior approval or prior notification for 

proposals is unnecessary and imposes 

an administrative burden on industry. 

References to § 126.8 have been 

removed at §§ 124.1(a), 125.4(a), 126.13, 

129.7(e), and 129.8(c). 

The Proposed Rule had a comment 

period ending May 28, 2010. Three 

parties filed comments by May 28 

recommending changes. Having 

thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the 

comments and the recommended 

changes, the Department has 

determined that it will, and hereby 

does, adopt the Proposed Rule, with 

minor edits, and promulgates it as a 

Final Rule. The Department’s evaluation 

of the written comments and 

recommendations follows. 

Comment Analysis 

One commenting party commended 

the proposed change as removing an 

unnecessary and redundant licensing 

burden, without suggesting any changes. 

One commenting party supported the 

proposed change, but recommended 

certain ‘‘clerical’’ changes to other parts 

of the ITAR for purposes of consistency. 

Specifically, § 126.1(e) requires the 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ 

(DDTC) written approval or a license 

prior to a proposal to sell defense 

articles or services to any country 

covered in that section (i.e., restricted 

destinations). The commenting party 

suggested the definition of ‘‘proposal’’ in 

§ 126.8(b) be incorporated into 

§ 126.1(e). We believe the incorporation 

of the § 126.8(b) definition of ‘‘proposal’’ 

could confuse exporters, potentially 

encouraging ‘‘preliminary discussions’’ 

with prohibited destinations. Therefore, 

we do not support that change. We do, 

however, concur with this commenting 

party’s recommendation that we delete 

the references to § 126.8 in §§ 124.1(a), 

125.4(a), and 129.7(e). This has been 

accomplished in our proposed change to 

§ 124.1(a). Appropriate changes to 

§ 125.4(a) and § 129.7(e) have been 

added to this notice. 

One commenting party expressed 

concern that the elimination of the prior 

notification requirement would 

contravene ‘‘the fundamental goals of 

the ITAR’’ through arms deals furthering 

the persecution of individuals, denial of 

human rights, terrorism, and genocide, 

with special concern about foreign 

military sales. We note at the outset that 

foreign military sales are not controlled 

by the ITAR, as opposed to direct 

commercial sales. We also note that we 

are not lessening control over the export 

of any defense article, technology, or 

service. Nor are we lessening scrutiny 

over prohibited/restricted destinations 

(§ 126.1(e) remains in place). Rather, we 

are eliminating the requirement for 

reviewing an export transaction twice, 

which we consider to be a redundant 

burden on industry and government. 

One commenting party stated that the 

change would ‘‘limit or eliminate the 

President’s ability to remain informed of 

‘negotiations’ * * * ’’ in contravention 

of the spirit of § 2778(a)(3) of the Arms 

Export Control Act (AECA). Our 

experience from a practical day-to-day 

review of exports gives us a different 

perspective. We note that advance 

notice of pending export transactions 

was a meaningful concept in the days 

when the average license processing 

time was over 60 days. But when the 

average processing time is 

approximately 15 days, it is easier and 

faster to review the export transaction 

(e.g., manufacturing licensing 

agreement) as a whole rather than 

piecemeal. With the challenge of over 

84,000 licenses per year, a requirement 

to review export transactions (in effect) 

twice is an unnecessary burden that 

provides the executive branch with 

effectively no advance notice. Most 

importantly, the requirement to obtain a 

license or other authorization before 

passing ITAR controlled technical data 

remains in place, placing a significant 

limitation on the content of 

negotiations. Furthermore, we will 

maintain the § 126.1(e) requirement of 

notice for proposed transactions with 

restricted destinations, where in most 

cases there would be a presumption 

against the export. 

The same commenting party also 

advised that an unintended 

consequence of the change is the 

‘‘elimination of any recordkeeping 

requirements’’ for proposals. We do not 

agree, since the § 126.8 requirement to 

report certain proposals is an obligation 

separate and independent from 

recordkeeping requirements. It will 

continue to be good practice to maintain 

records of such transactions for an 

appropriate duration in compliance 

with § 122.5, particularly to rebut any 

post hoc allegations that ITAR 

controlled technical data were 

transferred without a license or 

authorization. 

The same commenting party 

recommended alternatively that § 126.8 

be retained, but the definition of 

‘‘proposal’’ in § 126.8(b) be expanded to 

better define what constitutes ‘‘sufficient 

detail.’’ For the reasons already 

mentioned above, we believe that 

elimination of § 126.8 altogether is 

simpler and less confusing than 

whittling away at the definition of 

proposal. Another alternative 

recommended was elimination of 

§ 126.8, but replacement with an 

exemption. We note that exemptions are 

used to exempt transactions from 

licensing requirements when they 

would otherwise apply. If we eliminate 

§ 126.8, there would be no requirement 

from which the exporter would require 

exemption. Therefore, the 

recommendation is rejected. 

Finally, we disagree with the 

commenting party’s allegation that by 

this action DDTC would ‘‘abandon its 

authority to implement § 2778(a)(3) of 

the AECA.’’ Since the operative language 

was that the ‘‘President may require that 

persons engaged in the negotiation of 

defense articles and services keep the 

President fully and currently informed 

of the progress and future prospects of 

such negotiations,’’ this is a 

discretionary authority. Practical 

experience has demonstrated that the 

prior notification/approval requirement 

is an unnecessary burden on industry 

without adding any information of value 

to DDTC’s review of exports. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This amendment involves a foreign 

affairs function of the United States and, 

therefore, is not subject to the 

procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. 553 

and 554. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Since this amendment is not subject 

to 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require 

analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This amendment 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. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This amendment has been found not 

to be a major rule within the meaning 

of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 

This amendment will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

52624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this amendment 

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 amendment. 

Executive Order 12866 

This amendment is exempt from 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

but has been reviewed internally by the 

Department of State to ensure 

consistency with the purposes thereof. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Department of State has reviewed 

the proposed amendments 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. 

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 pre-empt tribal law. 

Accordingly, the requirement of Section 

5 of Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

List of Subjects 

22 CFR Parts 124 and 129 

Arms and munitions, Exports, 

Technical assistance. 

22 CFR Part 125 

Arms and munitions, Exports. 

22 CFR Part 126 

Arms and munitions, Exports. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter 

M, parts 124, 125, 126, and 129 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 124—AGREEMENTS, OFFSHORE PROCUREMENT AND OTHER 

DEFENSE SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 124 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90– 

629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 

2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 

Comp., p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 

2776; Pub. L. 105–261. 

■ 2. Section 124.1 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 124.1 Manufacturing license agreements 

and technical assistance agreements. 

(a) Approval. The approval of the 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls 

must be obtained before the defense 

services described in § 120.9(a) of this 

subchapter may be furnished. In order 

to obtain such approval, the U.S. person 

must submit a proposed agreement to 

the Directorate of Defense Trade 

Controls. Such agreements are generally 

characterized as manufacturing license 

agreements, technical assistance 

agreements, distribution agreements, or 

off-shore procurement agreements, and 

may not enter into force without the 

prior written approval of the Directorate 

of Defense Trade Controls. Once 

approved, the defense services 

described in the agreements may 

generally be provided without further 

licensing in accordance with §§ 124.3 

and 125.4(b)(2) of this subchapter. The 

requirements of this section apply 

whether or not technical data is to be 

disclosed or used in the performance of 

the defense services described in 

§ 120.9(a) of this subchapter (e.g., all the 

information relied upon by the U.S. 

person in performing the defense 

service is in the public domain or is 

otherwise exempt from licensing 

requirements of this subchapter 

pursuant to § 125.4 of this subchapter). 

This requirement also applies to the 

training of any foreign military forces, 

regular and irregular, in the use of 

defense articles. Technical assistance 

agreements must be submitted in such 

cases. In exceptional cases, the 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, 

upon written request, will consider 

approving the provision of defense 

services described in § 120.9(a) of this 

subchapter by granting a license under 

part 125 of this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 125—LICENSES FOR THE 

EXPORT OF TECHNICAL DATA AND 

CLASSIFIED DEFENSE ARTICLES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 125 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 2 and 38, Pub. L. 90–629, 

90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778); E.O. 

11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p.79; 

22 U.S.C. 2651a. 

■ 4. Section 125.4 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 125.4 Exemptions of general 

applicability. 

(a) The following exemptions apply to 

exports of technical data for which 

approval is not needed from the 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. 

The exemptions, except for paragraph 

(b)(13) of this section, do not apply to 

exports to proscribed destinations under 

§ 126.1 of this subchapter or for persons 

considered generally ineligible under 

§ 120.1(c) of this subchapter. The 

exemptions are also not applicable for 

purposes of establishing offshore 

procurement arrangements or producing 

defense articles offshore (see § 124.13), 

except as authorized under § 125.4(c). 

Transmission of classified information 

must comply with the requirements of 

the Department of Defense National 

Industrial Security Program Operating 

Manual (unless such requirements are 

in direct conflict with guidance 

provided by the Directorate of Defense 

Trade controls, in which case the latter 

guidance must be followed) and the 

exporter must certify to the transmittal 

authority that the technical data does 

not exceed the technical limitation of 

the authorized export. 

* * * * * 

PART 126—GENERAL POLICIES AND 

PROVISIONS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 126 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42 and 71, Pub. 

L. 90–629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 

2780, 2791 and 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 

4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 

2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 

28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, 

Pub. L. 108–375. 

§ 126.8 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 6. Section 126.8 is removed and 

reserved. 

■ 7. Section 126.13 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 126.13 Required information. 

(a) All applications for licenses (DSP– 

5, DSP–61, DSP–73, and DSP–85), all 

requests for approval of agreements and 

amendments thereto under part 124 of 

this subchapter, and all requests for 

written authorizations must include a 

letter signed by a responsible official 

empowered by the applicant and 

addressed to the Directorate of Defense 

Trade Controls, stating whether: 

* * * * * 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 52625 

PART 129—REGISTRATION AND 

LICENSING OF BROKERS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 129 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 38, Pub. L. 104–164, 110 

Stat. 1437, (22 U.S.C. 2778). 

§ 129.7 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 129.7 is amended by 

removing paragraph (e). 

§ 129.8 [Amended] 

■ 10. Section 129.8 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c). 

Dated: August 18, 2010. 

Ellen O. Tauscher, 

Under Secretary, Arms Control and 

International Security, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21451 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 125 

[Public Notice: 7135] 

RIN 1400–AC59 

Amendment to the International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations: Export 

Exemption for Technical Data 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

amending the International Traffic in 

Arms Regulations (ITAR) to clarify an 

exemption for technical data. The 

clarification is that the exemption 

covers technical data, regardless of 

media or format, sent or taken by a U.S. 

person who is an employee of a U.S. 

corporation or a U.S. Government 

agency to a U.S. person employed by 

that U.S. corporation or to a U.S. 

Government agency outside the United 

States. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective August 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Director Charles Shotwell, Office of 

Defense Trade Controls Policy, 

Department of State, Telephone (202) 

663–2792 or Fax (202) 261–8199; E-mail 

DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: 

Regulatory Change, Section 125.4. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 24, 2009, the Department 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to add language 

clarifying 22 CFR 125.4(b)(9) to allow 

technical data, including classified 

information, and regardless of media or 

format, sent or taken by a U.S. person 

who is an employee of a U.S. 

corporation or a U.S. Government 

agency, to a U.S. person employed by 

that U.S. corporation or to a U.S. 

Government agency outside the United 

States under certain specified 

circumstances reflected in 22 CFR 

125.4(b)(9)(i) through (iii) (74 FR 

61292). This amendment will add after 

the word ‘‘information’’ the words ‘‘and 

regardless of media or format.’’ Also, the 

words ‘‘sent by a U.S. corporation to a 

U.S. person employed by that 

corporation overseas or to a U.S. 

Government agency’’ has been replaced 

by ‘‘sent or taken by a U.S. person who 

is an employee of a U.S. corporation or 

a U.S. Government agency to a U.S. 

person employed by that corporation or 

to a U.S. Government agency outside the 

United States.’’ Thus, the exemption 

will explicitly allow hand carrying 

technical data by a U.S. person 

employed by a U.S. corporation or a 

U.S. Government agency to a U.S. 

person employed by that U.S. 

corporation or to a U.S. Government 

agency outside the United States, as 

long as certain criteria in §§ 125.4(b)(9) 

and 125.4(b)(9)(i)–(iii) are met. The 

word ‘‘overseas’’ will be replaced by 

‘‘outside the United States’’ at 

§§ 125.4(b)(9), 125.4(b)(9)(i), 

125.4(b)(9)(ii), and 125.4(b)(9)(iii). Also, 

§ 125.4(b)(9)(iii) will be amended to add 

the words ‘‘or taken’’ after the word 

‘‘sent.’’ As stated in 22 CFR 125.4(a), this 

exemption does not apply to exports to 

proscribed destinations under 22 CFR 

126.1. 

The Proposed Rule had a comment 

period ending January 25, 2010. Nine 

parties filed comments by January 25 

recommending changes. Having 

thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the 

comments and the recommended 

changes, the Department has 

determined that it will, and hereby 

does, adopt the Proposed Rule, with 

minor edits, and promulgates it as a 

Final Rule. The Department’s evaluation 

of the written comments and 

recommendations follows: 

Comment Analysis 

One commenting party recommended 

that ‘‘sent or taken’’ be changed to ‘‘sent, 

taken or accessed.’’ This 

recommendation was deemed not 

necessary since it is implied the U.S. 

person who is an employee of a U.S. 

corporation or the U.S. person who is an 

employee of a U.S. Government agency 

taking the technical data outside of the 

United States may access the technical 

data. 

One commenting party inquired 

whether a U.S. corporation 

(manufacturer) could use the exemption 

to send (orally or via e-mail) technical 

data to an employee of a U.S. 

Government agency outside the United 

States, as well as what steps the U.S. 

manufacturer would take to ensure that 

22 CFR 125.4(b)(9)(i)–(ii) are met. The 

U.S. corporation (in compliance with 22 

CFR part 122) is able to use the 

exemption to send (orally or via e-mail) 

technical data to a U.S. person 

employed by a U.S. Government agency 

outside the United States, so long as the 

U.S. company takes reasonable 

precautions to ensure that conditions in 

22 CFR 125.4(b)(9)(i) through (ii) are 

met: 

1. The technical data will be used 

outside of the United States solely by 

U.S. persons; and 

2. The U.S. person outside of the 

United States is employed by a U.S. 

Government agency. 

Two commenting parties 

recommended that it be explicit that the 

technical data could be for ‘‘personal 

use’’ by the U.S. person claiming the 

exemption. That recommendation was 

not adopted since it introduced 

uncertainty about uses beyond those 

related to employment. 

One commenting party pointed out 

that when technical data is exported 

from a U.S. port using an exemption, the 

ITAR does not require the report of such 

an export using the Automated Export 

System (AES); instead, the exporter is to 

provide electronic notification directly 

to the Directorate of Defense Trade 

Controls (DDTC) (see 22 CFR 

123.22(b)(3)(iii)). The commenting party 

recommended that if the system to 

electronically file directly to DDTC is 

not going to be implemented, then 

DDTC should arrange for AES to be the 

reporting mechanism. The commenting 

party also recommended that if 

classified technical data is being 

exported under the provisions of the 

Department of Defense National 

Industrial Security Program Operating 

Manual, an Electronic Export 

Information should be filed within AES. 

For exports of technical data using 

exemptions, there is no system to 

electronically file directly to DDTC. 

DDTC is reviewing carefully the 

possibility of having all exports of 

technical data using an exemption be 

reported using an Electronic Export 

Information within Census Bureau’s 

Automated Export System. 

Two commenting parties 

recommended the exemption at 

§ 125.4(b)(9) be expanded so the 

exporter would be a U.S. person who is 

an employee of any entity, organization, 

or group incorporated or organized to do 

business in the United States. Also, the 

recipient would be a U.S. person 

employed by that entity, organization, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES