19778 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 

40103. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations to 

assign the use of the airspace necessary 

to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority as 

it removes Class E2 airspace at Luke Air 

Force Base, Phoenix, AZ. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p.389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9R, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, signed August 15, 2007, and 

effective September 15, 2007, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace 

Designated as Surface Areas. 

* * * * * 

AWP AZ E2 Phoenix, Luke AFB, AZ 

[Revoked] 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, on March 27, 2008. 

Clark Desing, 

Manager, System Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. E8–7663 Filed 4–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 121 

[Public Notice 6187] 

RIN 1400–AC47 

Amendment to the International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations: The United 

States Munitions List 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

proposing to amend the text of the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR), Part 121, to add 

language clarifying how the criteria of 

Section 17(c) of the Export 

Administration Act of 1979 (‘‘EAA’’) are 

implemented in accordance with the 

Department of State’s obligations under 

the Arms Export Control Act (‘‘AECA’’), 

and restating the Department’s 

longstanding policy and practice of 

implementing the criteria of this 

provision. 

DATES: Effective Date: The Department 

of State will accept comments on this 

proposed rule until May 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments within 30 days of the 

date of publication by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: 

DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with an 

appropriate subject line. 

• Mail: Department of State, 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, 

Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, 

ATTN: Regulatory Change, ITAR 

Section 121, SA–1, 12th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20522–0112. 

Persons with access to the Internet 

may also view this notice by going to 

the regulations.gov Web site at http:// 

regulations.gov/index.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Director Ann Ganzer, Office Defense 

Trade Controls Policy, Department of 

State, Telephone (202) 663–2792 or Fax 

(202) 261–8199; E-mail 

DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: 

Regulatory Change, ITAR Part 121. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There 

have been an increasing number of 

Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) requests for 

certain basic parts and components 

having a long history of use on both 

civil and military aircraft. The intent of 

this notice is to make it clear that these 

parts and components are not subject to 

the jurisdiction of the Department of 

State and to restate the Department’s 

longstanding practice of using the CJ 

process to determine the applicability of 

the criteria of Section 17(c) of the EAA 

(‘‘Section 17(c)’’) in cases where there is 

uncertainty. 

Specifically, Section 17(c) states that 

any product (1) which is standard 

equipment, certified by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (‘‘FAA’’), in 

civil aircraft and is an integral part of 

such aircraft, and (2) which is to be 

exported to a country other than a 

controlled country, shall be subject to 

export controls exclusively under the 

EAA. Although the EAA expired on 

August 20, 2001, the President, through 

Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 

2001, as extended by the notice of 

August 15, 2007, directed that the 

provisions of the EAA be carried out to 

the extent permitted by law. 

Since its passage, the Department has 

implemented Section 17(c) through 

various regulatory amendments and 

notices consistent with the aims of the 

EAA and the AECA. 

While Section 17(c) criteria apply to 

certain parts and components for civil 

aircraft, there have been recurring 

questions regarding its scope and 

meaning, and the Department’s 

interpretation of its provisions. For 

example, while the language of Section 

17(c) referred specifically to certain 

products that are standard equipment in 

civil aircraft, some exporters have 

mistakenly believed this provision 

applied to complete aircraft. Exporters 

have also suggested that FAA 

‘‘certification’’ should by itself be 

sufficient to determine whether an 

article is subject to the controls of the 

USML. While FAA certification is one 

of the factors in the Section 17(c) 

criteria, FAA certifications serve a 

different purpose (safety of flight), and 

the FAA may issue a civil certification 

for military aircraft and their parts and 

components (e.g., the C–130J). 

Shortly after the enactment of Section 

17(c), the Department requested, 

through a proposed rule in the Federal 

Register on December 19, 1980, the 

opinions of the public as well as other 

agencies regarding the implementation 

of Section 17(c). The Department 

received many comments from the 

public, the Department of Commerce, 

and several other agencies. The 

Department noted that certain inertial 

navigation systems destined for specific 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 19779 

countries would be deleted from the 

USML, due primarily to the enactment 

of Section 17(c). In 1981, the 

Department conducted a review of the 

USML consistent with the AECA and 

Section 17(c) to determine whether any 

articles should be removed. The results 

were formally reported in a 

congressionally mandated report to 

Congress. This report came soon after 

Congress rejected a House bill that 

would have removed from the USML 

certain defense articles having a ‘‘direct 

civilian application.’’ Several years 

later, after taking into consideration the 

comments received from the public and 

other agencies on its proposed rule, the 

Department published a final rule in the 

Federal Register on December 6, 1984. 

In this rule, the Department noted there 

had been confusion on the relationship 

of the ITAR to the export regulations 

administered by the Department of 

Commerce. In an effort to provide 

clarity, the Department provided some 

general guidance by adding the then 

new Part 120 (at the time titled: 

Purpose, background and definitions), 

and the Department also referenced 

certain notable deletions to the USML, 

including certain trainer aircraft and 

certain inertial navigation systems. 

However, some questions on this 

issue remained, so on April 7, 1988, the 

Department published a final rule in the 

Federal Register. Consistent with the 

Department’s long established practice 

at that time of implementing Section 

17(c), the Department added language to 

the ITAR requiring that a CJ review take 

place to determine whether any FAAcertified developmental aircraft or 

components thereof would be removed 

from the USML. The Department noted 

this change helped to conform the ITAR 

to the Department’s current practice of 

requiring CJ’s to address such 

uncertainties, and that this change 

would ensure the items excluded under 

Section 17(c) were properly identified. 

The Department again obtained 

comments from the public regarding 

this change. 

In the years since the 1988 Federal 

Register Notice described above was 

published, the ITAR has consistently 

required a CJ review take place where 

there are uncertainties regarding 

whether an item is covered by the 

USML, including whether the item falls 

within the criteria of Section 17(c). In 

1991, the Department undertook a 

comprehensive review of the USML to 

address jurisdiction over articles 

seemingly subject to both the USML and 

the Commerce Control List. This large 

interagency review was conducted 

consistent with the AECA and Section 

17(c), and resulted in the removal of 

certain items from USML control. In 

1996, based on interagency discussions, 

the specific reference to Section 17(c) in 

the ITAR was removed, but the 

Department’s policy and practice of 

applying the criteria of Section 17(c) 

remained. We note that the removal of 

the reference to Section 17(c) may have 

caused some of the current confusion as 

to the Department’s policy and 

procedures for applying Section 17(c). 

This proposed rule reinstates the 

Section 17(c) reference in the ITAR to 

assist exporters in understanding the 

scope and application of the Section 

17(c) criteria to parts and components 

for civil aircraft. It also clarifies that any 

part or component that (a) is standard 

equipment; (b) is covered by a civil 

aircraft type certificate (including 

amended type certificates and 

supplemental type certificates) issued 

by the Federal Aviation Administration 

for civil, non-military aircraft (this 

expressly excludes military aircraft 

certified as restricted and any type 

certification of Military Commercial 

Derivative Aircraft); and (c) is an 

integral part of such civil aircraft, is 

subject to the Export Administration 

Regulations. Where such part or 

component is not Significant Military 

Equipment (‘‘SME’’), no CJ 

determination is required to determine 

whether the item meets these criteria for 

exclusion under the USML, unless 

doubt exists as to whether these criteria 

have been met. However, where the part 

or component is SME, a CJ 

determination is always required, 

except where an SME part or 

component was integral to civil aircraft 

prior to the effective date of this rule. 

Additionally, this proposed rule adds 

language in a new Note after Category 

VIII(h) to provide guidelines concerning 

the parts or components meeting these 

criteria. The change to Category VIII(b) 

also identifies and designates certain 

sensitive military items, heretofore 

controlled under Category VIII(h), as 

SME in order to simplify the 

implementation of the criteria of Section 

17(c) consistent with the aims of the 

AECA. Previous and current licenses 

and other authorizations concerning 

these items will not require notification 

in accordance with § 124.11, and will 

not require a DSP–83, unless they are 

amended, modified, or renewed. 

This requirement for a CJ 

determination by the Department of 

State helps ensure the U.S. Government 

is made aware of, and can reach an 

informed decision regarding, any 

sensitive military item proposed for 

standardization in the commercial 

aircraft industry before the item or 

technology is actually applied to a 

commercial aircraft program, whether 

such item is integral to the aircraft, and, 

if so, whether the development, 

production, and use of the technology 

associated with the item should 

nevertheless be controlled on the 

USML. It will also ensure the 

Department of State fulfills the 

requirements of section 38(f) of the 

Arms Export Control Act. 

This regulation is intended to clarify 

the control of aircraft parts and 

components, and does not remove any 

items from the USML, nor does it 

change any CJ determinations. Should 

there be an apparent conflict between 

this regulation and a CJ determination 

issued prior to this date, the holder of 

the determination should seek 

reconsideration, citing this regulation. 

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 involves a 

foreign affairs function of the United 

States, 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 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 amendment 

does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to require consultations or 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19780 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 the 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

but has been reviewed internally by the 

Department of State to ensure 

consistency with the purposes thereof. 

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 in 22 CFR Part 121 

Arms and munitions, Exports, U.S. 

Munitions List. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter 

M, part 121 is proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 121—THE UNITED STATES 

MUNITIONS LIST 

1. The authority citation for part 121 

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

Comp, p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2658; Pub L. 105–261, 

112 Stat.1920. 

2. Section 121.1, paragraph (c) 

Category VIII is amended by revising 

Category VIII paragraphs (b) and (h) to 

read as follows: 

§ 121.1 General. The United States 

Munitions List. 

* * * * * 

Category VIII—Aircraft and Associated 

Equipment 

* * * * * 

(b) Military aircraft engines, except 

reciprocating engines, specifically designed 

or modified for the aircraft in paragraph (a) 

of this category, and all specifically designed 

military hot section components (i.e., 

combustion chambers and liners; high 

pressure turbine blades, vanes, disks and 

related cooled structure; cooled low pressure 

turbine blades, vanes, disks and related 

cooled structure; cooled augmenters; and 

cooled nozzles) and digital engine controls 

(e.g., Full Authority Digital Engine Controls 

(FADEC) and Digital Electronic Engine 

Controls (DEEC)). 

* * * * * 

(h) Components, parts, accessories, 

attachments, and associated equipment 

(including ground support equipment) 

specifically designed or modified for the 

articles in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

category, excluding aircraft tires and 

propellers used with reciprocating engines. 

Note: The Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR) administered by the 

Department of Commerce control any part or 

component (including propellers) designed 

exclusively for civil, non-military aircraft 

(see § 121.3 for the definition of military 

aircraft) and civil, non-military aircraft 

engines. Also, a non-SME component or part 

(as defined in § 121.8(b) and (d) of this 

subchapter) that is not controlled under 

another category of the USML, that: (a) Is 

standard equipment; (b) is covered by a civil 

aircraft type certificate (including amended 

type certificates and supplemental type 

certificates) issued by the Federal Aviation 

Administration for a civil, non-military 

aircraft (this expressly excludes military 

aircraft certified as restricted and any type 

certification of Military Commercial 

Derivative Aircraft); and (c) is an integral part 

of such civil aircraft, is subject to the control 

of the EAR. In the case of any part or 

component designated as SME in this or any 

other USML category, a determination that 

such item may be excluded from USML 

coverage based on the three criteria above 

always requires a commodity jurisdiction 

determination by the Department of State 

under § 120.4 of this subchapter. The only 

exception to this requirement is where a part 

or component designated as SME in this 

category was integral to civil aircraft prior to 

[effective date of the final rule]. For such part 

or component, U.S. exporters are not 

required to seek a commodity jurisdiction 

determination from State, unless doubt exists 

as to whether the item meets the three 

criteria above (See § 120.3 and § 120.4 of this 

subchapter). Also, U.S. exporters are not 

required to seek a commodity jurisdiction 

determination from State regarding any nonSME component or part (as defined in 

§ 121.8(b) and (d) of this subchapter) that is 

not controlled under another category of the 

USML, unless doubt exists as to whether the 

item meets the three criteria above (See 

§ 120.3 and § 120.4 of this subchapter). These 

commodity jurisdiction determinations will 

ensure compliance with this section and the 

criteria of Section 17(c) of the Export 

Administration Act of 1979. In determining 

whether the three criteria above have been 

met, consider whether the same item is 

common to both civil and military 

applications without modification. Some 

examples of parts or components that are not 

common to both civil and military 

applications are tail hooks, radomes, and low 

observable rotor blades. ‘‘Standard 

equipment’’ is defined as a part or 

component manufactured in compliance 

with an established and published industry 

specification or an established and published 

government specification (e.g., AN, MS, NAS, 

or SAE). Parts and components that are 

manufactured and tested to established but 

unpublished civil aviation industry 

specifications and standards are also 

‘‘standard equipment,’’ e.g., pumps, 

actuators, and generators. A part or 

component is not standard equipment if 

there are any performance, manufacturing or 

testing requirements beyond such 

specifications and standards. Simply testing 

a part or component to meet a military 

specification or standard does not in and of 

itself change the jurisdiction of such part or 

component unless the item was designed or 

modified to meet that specification or 

standard. Integral is defined as a part or 

component that is installed in the aircraft. In 

determining whether a part or component 

may be considered as standard equipment 

and integral to a civil aircraft (e.g., latches, 

fasteners, grommets, and switches) it is 

important to carefully review all of the 

criteria noted above. For example, a part 

approved solely on a non-interference/ 

provisions basis under a type certificate 

issued by the Federal Aviation 

Administration would not qualify. Similarly, 

unique application parts or components not 

integral to the aircraft would also not qualify. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 2, 2008. 

John C. Rood, 

Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and 

International Security, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 08–1122 Filed 4–9–08; 1:48pm] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 150 and 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2007–0087] 

RIN 1625–AA00, 1625–AA11, and 1625–

AA87 

Regulated Navigation Areas, Safety 

Zones, Security Zones, and Deepwater 

Port Facilities; Navigable Waters of the 

Boston Captain of the Port Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish regulated navigation areas 

around a recently constructed 

deepwater port facility in the waters of 

the Atlantic Ocean near the entrance to 

Boston Harbor and to establish safety 

and security zones around liquefied 

natural gas carriers (LNGCs) calling on 

these deepwater port facilities. The 

purpose of these regulated navigation 

areas is to protect vessels and mariners 

from the potential safety hazards 

associated with deepwater port 

operations, and to protect the LNGCs 

and deepwater port infrastructure from 

security threats or other subversive acts. 

All vessels, with the exception of 

LNGCs and deepwater port support 

vessels, would be prohibited from 

anchoring or otherwise deploying 

equipment that could become entangled 

in submerged infrastructure within 1000 

meters of the submerged turret loading 

(STL) buoys associated with the 

deepwater port, and would be 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS