Overview
On October 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of State published a proposed rule that would revise the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) and portions of the U.S. Munitions List (“USML”). The proposed revisions and questions posed to industry reflect the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ (“DDTC”) continued effort to focus ITAR controls on defense articles and defense services that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage, while reducing regulatory burdens and classification uncertainty for less sensitive articles and services. Below is a summary of the key revisions proposed. Public comments must be submitted on or before November 30, 2026.
Targeted USML Decontrols
DDTC proposes targeted changes in several USML categories:
- Category II: remove smooth-bore, fixed-barrel canister launchers;
- Category VIII: remove most radar altimeters;
- Category X: narrow controls on certain ocular protective equipment; and
- Category XX: substantially narrow controls on parts, components, and equipment for military submersibles and semi-submersibles, while expressly identifying certain articles “specially designed” for naval nuclear propulsion plants or facilities as Significant Military Equipment.
DDTC also requests comments identifying:
- Commodities, technical data, and services in normal commercial use;
- Commodities, technical data, and services with actual or anticipated civil applications; and
- Articles or services with such widespread foreign availability that they and their directly related technical data and defense services no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage.
New USML Exclusions Under Section 120.35
DDTC proposes a new Section 120.35 that would identify certain commodities and information excluded from the USML, with corresponding cross-references in the definitions of “defense article” and “defense service.” This new section would address two distinct questions. First, it would clarify when modification of an end-item, system, or equipment removes it from the USML. Second, it would identify certain unclassified descriptions of commodities or software that are excluded from the USML.
Regarding the first point, DDTC provides examples at both ends of the analysis:
- Continued control: A helicopter originally designed to deliver munitions would remain controlled under Category VIII even if it is now used exclusively for firefighting because the airframe was designed to support munitions delivery and retains properties that enable that function. As DDTC notes, removing weapons, hard points, and mission systems would not eliminate all relevant design characteristics because the helicopter “still has properties that are only in its design to enable the delivery of munitions,” and therefore “remains described in USML Category VIII.”
- Removal from control: A missile-launch vehicle could cease to be controlled under Category VII if its weapons, mission systems, and armor are removed and the remaining chassis and systems are common to non-launcher variants. Provided the vehicle no longer incorporates defense articles or retains characteristics meeting the applicable control criteria, it “would no longer be described” in Category VII(b).
Together, the examples illustrate DDTC’s view that the relevant inquiry is whether the characteristics responsible for USML control remain, not merely whether military components have been removed.
Regarding the second point, new Section 120.35 would relocate and clarify the provision in § 120.31(b) that excludes “basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions” from the definition of a defense article. The proposed language would cover unclassified descriptions of a commodity’s or software’s functions or purposes that do not explain how they are performed. It would also cover descriptions of performance capabilities that do not convey requirements or specifications. DDTC states that this new section is intended to clarify the existing exclusion without changing its scope.
Narrowing the “Specially Designed” Analysis
DDTC also proposes changes to the “specially designed” analysis, which determines whether otherwise unenumerated parts, components, accessories, attachments, and software may be captured by USML catch-all controls.
Proposed Section 120.41(b)(7) would prevent certain items that were not USML-controlled after leaving development from becoming subject to a USML catch-all solely because of their subsequent use in another defense article. DDTC explains that the provision is intended to prevent inadvertent ITAR control of items originally designed and produced for defense articles without an applicable USML catch-all that are later used in defense articles subject to a USML catch-all.
DDTC provides the example of an EAR-controlled component developed for a Category XI electronic support system (which has no catch-all control). Because the component is not otherwise described on the USML, it is subject to the EAR under ECCN 3A611.x. The EAR-controlled component is reused years later, without relevant modification, in a Category XX naval submarine system (which does have a catch-all control under Category XX(c)). Under the current framework, the Category XX(c) catch-all could cause the component to become USML-controlled solely because of that later use. Proposed Section 120.41(b)(7) would prevent that result when its conditions are satisfied. Among other requirements, the component must not have been described on the USML within the first year after leaving development and must subsequently be used in the same or equivalent form.
A separate “specially designed” exclusion under proposed Section 120.41(b)(8) would remove specified basic commodities from USML catch-all controls because DDTC has determined that they do not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. DDTC explains that, unlike the existing Section 120.41(b)(2) carve-out, proposed paragraph (b)(8) would not have a parallel provision in the EAR definition of “specially designed.” Accordingly, an item excluded from USML catch-all controls under paragraph (b)(8) could remain subject to an EAR catch-all control.
More broadly, DDTC asks whether specific functions, performance levels, or other characteristics related to the proposed rule could better distinguish commodities warranting ITAR control or replace reliance on “specially designed” as a control criterion.
New Foreign Defense Article Repair Exemption
Proposed Section 123.26 would create an exemption permitting the temporary export of certain unclassified foreign defense articles from the United States to the foreign original equipment manufacturer or its authorized service provider for specified activities, including servicing or repair. DDTC states that the exemption is intended to reduce unnecessary licensing burdens while maintaining appropriate controls on sensitive items. This exemption would not affect separate import requirements under the U.S. Munitions Import List, administered by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”).
Potential Future ITAR Reforms
DDTC solicits comments regarding commercial and civil uses, foreign availability, ambiguous control language, and whether more specific technical criteria could replace reliance on “specially designed” in the controls implicated by the proposed rule.
As such, the comment period for the proposed rule provides an opportunity to address both the proposed revisions and potential areas for further ITAR and USML modernization. Comments are due November 30, 2026, under docket DOS-2026-0991 and RIN 1400-AF40.
For more information on how the proposed rule may impact your business, please feel free to contact a member of Steptoe’s Export Controls team.
