Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5759 

disclosures that should affect our 

approach or affect our consideration of 

the economic effects of any rule 

changes? Are there any changes we 

should consider in the methodologies 

and estimates used to analyze the 

economic effects of the proposed rules 

in the Proposing Release? 

We request and encourage any 

interested person to submit comments 

regarding the Proposed Rules, specific 

issues discussed in this release or the 

Proposing Release, and other matters 

that may have an effect on the proposed 

rules or the additional disclosure 

requirements we have noted here that 

we are considering. We request 

comment from the point of view of 

registrants, shareholders, directors, 

executives, investors, other market 

participants, and anyone else with an 

interest in this issue. If alternatives to 

the Proposed Rules are suggested, 

supporting data and analysis and 

quantitative information as to the costs 

and benefits of those alternatives are of 

particular assistance. Commenters are 

urged to be as specific as possible; when 

commenting, it would be most helpful 

if you include the reasoning behind 

your position or recommendation. 

If any commenters who have already 

submitted a comment letter wish to 

provide supplemental or updated 

comments, we encourage them to do so. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: January 27, 2022. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02024 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Parts 120, 126, and 127 

[Public Notice: 11532] 

RIN 1400–AF39 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations: Corrections and 

Clarifications for Export and Reexport; 

Canadian Exemptions; Exemptions 

Regarding Intra-Company, IntraOrganization, and Intra-Governmental 

Transfers to Employees Who Are Dual 

Nationals or Third-Country Nationals; 

and Voluntary Disclosures 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State 

(DOS) proposes to amend the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR) to clarify the 

definitions of export and reexport. 

Further, the Department proposes to 

replace the term ‘‘national’’ with 

‘‘person’’ in the Canadian exemptions; 

revise the exemption for intra-company, 

intra-organization, and intragovernmental transfers to dual nationals 

or third-country nationals; and correct 

administrative errors in the section on 

voluntary disclosures. 

DATES: The Department of State will 

accept comments on this proposed rule 

until April 4, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Email: DDTCPublicComments@

state.gov with the subject line: 

‘‘Regulatory Change: ITAR Sections 120, 

126 and 127’’ 

• Internet: At www.regulations.gov, 

search for this notice, Docket DOS– 

2021–0031. Comments received after 

that date may be considered if feasible, 

but consideration cannot be assured. 

Those submitting comments should not 

include any personally identifying 

information they do not desire to be 

made public or information for which a 

claim of confidentiality is asserted, 

because comments and/or transmittal 

emails will be made available for public 

inspection and copying after the close of 

the comment period via the Directorate 

of Defense Trade Controls website at 

www.pmddtc.state.gov. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Engda Wubneh, Foreign Affairs Officer, 

Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, 

U.S. Department of State, telephone 

(202) 663–1809; email 

DDTCCustomerService@state.gov. 

ATTN: Regulatory Change, ITAR parts 

120, 126, and 127. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of State proposes to amend 

the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR) to revise the 

definitions of export (ITAR § 120.17) 

and reexport (ITAR § 120.19) to clarify 

that any release of technical data to a 

foreign person described within the 

respective definitions is a release only 

to any countries in which that foreign 

person currently holds citizenship or 

permanent residency. Since the 

Department published ‘‘International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revisions 

to Definition of Export and Related 

Definitions’’ (81 FR 35611) in 2016, the 

Department has changed its assessment 

that inclusion of prior citizenship or 

permanent residency in ITAR 

§§ 120.17(b) and 120.19(b) is necessary 

based on its experience with this 

provision. The Department assesses that 

a foreign person’s former citizenship or 

permanent residency status in a country 

should not be deemed to automatically 

result in an export or reexport to that 

country. The Department proposes this 

change to better align with our policy 

and requirements in Section 126.18 and 

to provide greater opportunities for 

foreign persons who are no longer 

citizens or permanent residents of 

certain countries to participate in ITARregulated activities. 

Further, the Department proposes to 

replace the term ‘‘national’’ with the 

ITAR-defined term ‘‘person’’ in ITAR 

§ 126.5(b) of the Canadian exemption to 

be consistent with how foreign persons 

are defined in the ITAR. The 

Department also proposes to remove the 

phrase ‘‘although nationality does not, 

in and of itself, prohibit access to 

defense articles’’ from ITAR 

§ 126.18(c)(2) as the definitions of 

export and reexport provide that a 

release to a foreign person constitutes an 

export or reexport, as applicable, to all 

countries in which the foreign person 

holds citizenship or permanent 

residency. This proposed change is not 

intended to convey any change to the 

Department’s long-standing position 

that the purpose of vetting employees 

from countries listed in ITAR § 126.1 is 

to mitigate diversion. Further, simply 

identifying nationalities with no 

substantive contacts with ITAR § 126.1 

countries is not a precondition to rely 

on to use the exemption for intracompany, intra-organization, and intragovernmental transfers to dual or thirdcountry nationals. The Department also 

proposes to clarify ITAR § 126.18(c)(2) 

by stating that the screened employee, 

not the end-user or consignee, must 

execute a nondisclosure agreement to 

provide assurances that said employee 

will not transfer any unclassified 

defense articles to unauthorized 

persons. 

Lastly, the Department proposes to 

correct administrative errors in the 

voluntary disclosures section of the 

ITAR by providing the correct 

references to exemptions pursuant to 

the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties 

between the United States and Australia 

and the United States and the United 

Kingdom in ITAR §§ 126.16 and 126.17, 

respectively. Additionally, the 

Department proposes to streamline the 

section on voluntary disclosures by 

simply referencing the relevant ITAR 

sections, §§ 126.1(e), 126.16(h)(8), and 

126.17(h)(8), that describe the duties of 

persons to notify the Directorate of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5760 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Defense Trade Controls of particular 

activities. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department of State is of the 

opinion that controlling the import and 

export of defense articles and services is 

a foreign affairs function of the United 

States Government and that rules 

implementing this function are exempt 

from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 

(adjudications) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Since the Department 

is of the opinion that this rule is exempt 

from 5 U.S.C. 553, it is the view of the 

Department that the provisions of 

Section 553(d) do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Notwithstanding the Department’s 

publication of this rulemaking as a 

proposed rule, this rule is exempt from 

the notice-and-comment rulemaking 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 as a foreign 

affairs function. Therefore, 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 are deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 

This rulemaking will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this proposed 

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 

rulemaking. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributed impacts, and equity). 

This rule’s scope does not impose 

additional regulatory requirements or 

obligations; therefore, the Department 

believes costs associated with this rule 

will be minimal. Although the 

Department cannot determine based on 

available data how many fewer licenses 

will be submitted as a result of this rule, 

the amendments to the definitions of 

export and reexport will inherently 

relieve the licensing burden for some 

exporters. Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

has been designated as a ‘‘nonsignificant 

regulatory action’’ by the Office and 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Department of State has reviewed 

this rulemaking in light 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 preempt tribal law. 

Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking does not impose or 

revise any information collections 

subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Parts 120, 

126, and 127 

Arms and munitions, Classified 

information, Crime, Exports, Penalties, 

Seizures and forfeitures. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Department of State proposes to amend 

22 CFR parts 120, 126, and 127 as 

follows: 

PART 120—PURPOSE and 

DEFINITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 120 

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. 2794; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. 

L. 105–261, 112 Stat. 1920; Pub. L. 111–266; 

Section 1261, Pub. L. 112–239; E.O. 13637, 

78 FR 16129. 

■ 2. Amend § 120.17 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 120.17 Export. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any release in the United States of 

technical data to a foreign person is 

deemed to be an export to all countries 

in which the foreign person holds 

citizenship or permanent residency. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 120.19 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 120.19 Reexport. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any release outside the United 

States of technical data to a foreign 

person is deemed to be a reexport to all 

countries in which the foreign person 

holds citizenship or permanent 

residency. 

* * * * * 

PART 126—GENERAL POLICIES AND 

PROVISIONS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 126 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 

2791, and 2797; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 

287c; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108–375; Sec. 7089, 

Pub. L. 111–117; Pub. L. 111–266; Sections 

7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112–74; E.O. 13637, 

78 FR 16129. 

■ 5. Amend § 126.5 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 126.5 Canadian exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Permanent and temporary export 

of defense articles. Except as provided 

in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this 

subchapter and for exports that transit 

third countries, Port Directors of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection and 

postmasters shall permit, when for enduse in Canada by Canadian Federal or 

Provincial governmental authorities 

acting in an official capacity or by a 

Canadian-registered person, or for 

return to the United States, the 

permanent and temporary export to 

Canada without a license of unclassified 

defense articles and defense services 

identified on the U.S. Munitions List (22 

CFR 121.1). The exceptions are subject 

to meeting the requirements of this 

subchapter, to include 22 CFR 120.1(c) 

and (d), parts 122 and 123 (except 

insofar as exemption from licensing 

requirements is herein authorized) and 

§ 126.1, and the requirement to obtain 

non-transfer and use assurances for all 

significant military equipment. For 

purposes of this section, ‘‘Canadianregistered person’’ is any Canadian 

person (including Canadian business 

entities organized under the laws of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5761 

Canada), dual citizen of Canada and a 

third country other than a country listed 

in § 126.1 of this subchapter unless the 

conditions of § 126.18(c) are satisfied, or 

permanent resident registered in Canada 

in accordance with the Canadian 

Defense Production Act, and such other 

Canadian Crown Corporations identified 

by the Department of State in a list of 

such persons publicly available through 

the website of the Directorate of Defense 

Trade Controls and by other means. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 126.18 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 126.18 Exemptions regarding intracompany, intra-organization, and intragovernmental transfers to employees who 

are dual nationals or third-country 

nationals. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The end-user or consignee to have 

in place a process to screen its 

employees and for the employees to 

have executed a nondisclosure 

agreement that provides assurances that 

the employee will not transfer any 

defense articles to persons unless 

specifically authorized. The end-user or 

consignee must screen its employees for 

substantive contacts with restricted or 

prohibited countries listed in § 126.1. 

Substantive contacts include regular 

travel to such countries, recent or 

continuing contact with agents, brokers, 

and nationals of such countries, 

continued demonstrated allegiance to 

such countries, maintenance of business 

relationships with persons from such 

countries, maintenance of a residence in 

such countries, receiving salary or other 

continuing monetary compensation 

from such countries, or acts otherwise 

indicating a risk of diversion. An 

employee who has substantive contacts 

with persons from countries listed in 

§ 126.1(d)(1) shall be presumed to raise 

a risk of diversion, unless DDTC 

determines otherwise. End-users and 

consignees must maintain a technology 

security/clearance plan that includes 

procedures for screening employees for 

such substantive contacts and maintain 

records of such screening for five years. 

The technology security/clearance plan 

and screening records shall be made 

available to DDTC or its agents for civil 

and criminal law enforcement purposes 

upon request. 

* * * * * 

PART 127—VIOLATIONS AND 

PENALTIES 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 127 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 2, 38, and 42, Pub. L. 

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

2791); 22 U.S.C. 401; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 

U.S.C. 2779a; 22 U.S.C. 2780; E.O. 13637, 78 

FR 16129; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584. 

■ 8. Amend § 127.12 by revising 

paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 127.12 Voluntary disclosures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Nothing in this section shall be 

interpreted to negate or lessen the 

obligations imposed pursuant to 

§§ 126.1(e), 126.16(h)(8), and 

126.17(h)(8) of this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Bonnie Jenkins, 

Under Secretary, Arms Controls and 

International Security, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01889 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0913; FRL–9351–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; State of Missouri; 

Revised Plan for 1978 and 2008 Lead 

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 

action to approve the State of Missouri’s 

request to remove its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

maintaining the 1978 Lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in portions of Iron County, 

Missouri, surrounding the former Glover 

smelter, and replace the maintenance 

plan with a plan for continued 

attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Missouri has entered into a Consent 

Agreement with the facility’s current 

owner, the Doe Run Company (Doe 

Run), and has submitted the Consent 

Agreement for approval into the SIP 

along with a plan demonstrating 

continued attainment of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS in the area. The EPA’s 

proposed approval of the request is 

based on the determination that the area 

continues to meet the 1978 and 2008 

Lead NAAQS and that the plan provides 

additional protections to air quality 

regardless of ownership and/or 

operational status of the Glover facility. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 4, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2021–0913 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 at (913) 

551–7719 or by email at 

doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. Background for the EPA’s Proposed Action 

III. Missouri’s Submission 

IV. The EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Request 

1. Air Monitoring Demonstrates 

Attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

2. Demonstration that the Plan will Protect 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

4. Deconstruction or Demolition of 

Remaining Structures 

5. Other Differences Between the 2004 

Maintenance Plan and 2003 Settlement 

Agreement and the 2020 Plan and 2020 

Consent Agreement 

V. Requirements for Approval of a SIP 

Revision 

VI. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Environmental Justice Concerns 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021– 

0913, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1