Posted on 08/20/2008 4:08:43 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Parts 122 and 129
[Public Notice 6246] RIN 1400-AC50
Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Registration Fee Change
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State is proposing to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) by increasing the registration fees, changing the registration renewal period, and making other minor administrative changes.
DATES: Effective Date: The Department of State will accept comments on this proposed rule until August 27, 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 the subject line: ITAR Regulatory Change, 22 CFR Parts 122 and 129. Mail: Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, ATTN: Regulatory Change, ITAR sections 122 and 129, 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://www.regulations.gov/ index.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Slygh, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202) 663-2830 or FAX (202) 261-8199; e-mail DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov, Attn: Regulatory Change, ITAR Parts 122 and 129.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President has required that the U.S. Department of State initiate a self-financing mechanism so that up to 75% of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls' (DDTC) mission will eventually be self-financed. This proposed rule increases the fee charged to those persons required to register with DDTC in accordance with Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778). ITAR registration fees are set forth at 22 CFR 122.3 and were last adjusted in 2004. To better align registration fees with the cost of licensing, compliance and other related activities, the Department is adopting a three-tier registration fee schedule. The first tier will be a set fee of $2,250 per year for registrants who are renewing a registration, required to register by law and who have not submitted any applications during the twelve month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration. This tier includes those registering with the Department for the first time. The second tier is for registrants who have submitted ten or fewer applications during the twelve month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration. For this tier, registrants will pay a set fee of $2,750 per year. The third tier is for registrants who have submitted more than ten applications during the twelve month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration. For this tier, registrants will pay a fee of $2,750 plus an additional fee that is based on the number of applications they submitted during the twelve months ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration. The additional fee will be determined by multiplying $250 times the number of applications over ten submitted during the twelve month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of the current registration. Fees for registrants whose total registration fee is greater than 3% of the total value of applications submitted during the twelve month period ending 90 days prior to expiration of the current registration will be reduced to 3% of such total application value or $2,750, which ever is greater. Fees for universities and other registrants who are exempt from income taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may be reduced to the first tier registration fee provided proof of such status is submitted with their registration package. In addition, 22 CFR 129.4(a) and 22 CFR 129.4(b) is revised to reflect the new registration fee schedule.
{NOTE: this is only part of the document. Follow the link to see the rest of it}
To: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:16 PM Subject: ITAR Regulatory Change, 22CFR Parts 122 and 129
Gentlemen, August 20, 2008
I am writing this to comment on how the International Traffic in Arms Regulations will put many small business owners and firearms companies out of business.
You may not know this, but citizens in many foreign countries wish to buy and import sporting rifles, shotguns for bird hunting, and ordinary handguns.
There is a big trade going on now where Europeans want to do "cowboy shooting", and shotgun sports. Many of their historic guns were seized or destroyed during the World War, and under the Communists. The guns they want are coming from America, even some newly manufactured sporting rifles such as Finland's Tikka's, which are allocated 97% to the USA.
Folks world-wide want to get Winchesters, Marlins, Mossbergs, Rugers, Colts, Smith & Wessons, Glocks, Kahrs, Remingtons, and Kimbers. There are many dozens of American small arms companies serving the civilian market. You are proposing a severe regulatory tax on that whole business!
You need to make a provision for small arms, and situations where low priced items involve many separate export licenses.
You are adding a minimum of $250 to every attempted export of what might be a $175 dollar Marlin 22 rifle, even if that permit doesn't go through. Your proposed regulation concentrates the fee on businesses doing the export paperwork because they have the license. So if Joe Blow, a common gun collector sells one hunting rifle on Gunbroker.com to a foreign buyer, his transaction clobbers the exporter who finds himself quickly at the third tier with prohibitive $250 per gun fees.
I hope you quickly see that this regulatory change was written for actual military weapons systems, and unfortunately would be applied to sporting arms. If this is not changed, one of America's important exports will go out of business. And the value of American gun collections will fall, because the worldwide buyers are setting the top prices.
You could charge a lower fee, say $20 on each civilian arms transaction where the value if below $10,000.
Isn't the purpose of your law to keep weapons systems from North Korea and Iran and Syria? They don't buy Winchesters.
Respectively,
XXXXXXX
Comment number one is the message that needs to be sent to our overlords, the gun grabbing scum.
With all the “whatever Days” and all the “Whatever Months” we should have a “Buy A Gun Day” or “Buy A Gun Month” ....
Wal-Mart always has good deals ....
ping
The President has required that the U.S. Department of State initiate a self-financing mechanism...
Comports with the Constitution's Article 1 Section 7:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives....
Anyone else think that's a little odd?
I suspect this has very little to do with raising money and a whole lot to do with hating guns.
The problem with bills like this is we never know where they actually originated, what the intended purpose is, or what the exact end result is going to be. This is the type of bill that comes out of nowhere and bites you in the checkbook while removing more of your constitutional rights.
The US State Dept is part of the United Nations. The intention of this policy is to put as many small business owners and firearms companies out of business as they can.
Yep.
They wipe their ass with our constitution. Should we be shocked?
I suspect you suspect correct.
That’s how I read it.
Is the internet enough to keep these scum from ruining our country? I’m not so sure. I think the internet is just slowing the process down a little. Just think of the crap they could pull without anyone ever the wiser if there was no internet.
Sounds like Marlin, Winchester, Colt and Ruger need to file a class action suit against the State Department for imposing an undue burden and/or punitive taxation.
The one thing that we can smile about is knowing that Scalia’s decision caused multiple Class III hemorrhages across the entire UN Small Arms Panel.
Sometimes I daydream about having bill gates’ or warren buffet's moolah and about the many ways I'd wage war against the scum on the left...sort of a george soros on our side.
But a business is in the business of earning a profit for the shareholders, not to throw funds at someone else's fight.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2065331/posts if you haven’t seen this crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.