Comment on DOS-2012-0036-0001

It is my opinion that the Dept. of State's assertions in paragraph titled 'Regulatory Analysis and Notes' on pg. 29577 of Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 97 regarding exemption from § 553 (Rulemaking) and § 554(Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as exemption from provisions of 5 USC 553 and certain Executive Orders, is based on an inaccurate interpretation of primary departmental responsibility for the materials to be governed under the proposed rule. Since all materials to be covered under the proposed rule are military in nature or have potential military applications, the Dept. of Defense, not State, should have primary oversight in declaring or requesting exemption from federal rulemaking guidelines. Also, since the proposed rule directly affects the import or export of various commercially produced materials that would cross state borders or international boundaries, the Dept. of Commerce must also be included in any proposed rulemaking change. Based on statements included in the proposed rule relative to the addition of certain language and the co-ordination of language, terms, and definitions between two existing lists (the USML and the CCL) resulting in the increased likelihood of financial impact on businesses producing and shipping controlled materials, the assertion made by State in its impact analysis relative to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 and Exec. Ords. 12372 and 13132 is woefully inadequate. The potential for signifigant, protracted and expensive litigation against any manufacturer or shipper deemed to be non-compliant or have violated provisions of the Regulation could well impose unbearable costs on businesses for compliance, mitigation or defense against legal action. Also, the likelihood of involvement of other federal agencies (e.g. Dept. of Transportation) in any investigative or prosecutorial actions for the aforementioned reasons could impose considerable additional costs not allowed for in P. R.