22 C.F.R. § 126.9

Exemptions for certain activities involving defense articles

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)-(t) [Reserved]

(u) Exemption for certain large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) activities—(1) Activities exempted. No license or other approval is required for the following activities, subject to the restrictions in paragraph (u)(2) of this section:

(i) The temporary export, reexport, or temporary import of vessels described in USML Category XX(a)(10);

(ii) The furnishing of assistance to a foreign person in the maintenance, repair, operation, or use of a defense article described in USML Category XX(a)(10); or

(iii) Brokering activities to facilitate:

(A) The temporary export, reexport, or permanent import of vessels described in USML Category XX(a)(10); or

(B) The furnishing of assistance to a foreign person in the maintenance, repair, operation, or use of a defense article described in USML Category XX(a)(10).

(2) Restrictions. The exemption set forth in this paragraph (u) is subject to all of the following restrictions:

(i) The vessel must not be described in any USML paragraph other than Category XX(a)(10);

(ii) The vessel must not have a gross weight rating (as defined in § 121.0 of this subchapter) exceeding eight thousand pounds (8,000 lb);

(iii) The purpose of the activity must be limited to one or more of the following:

(A) Scientific research or natural resource exploration;

(B) Commercial or civil infrastructure maintenance, installation, or repair; or

(iv) The activity must not transfer registration, control, or ownership of the vessel to a foreign person.

[90 FR 41788, Aug. 27, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2016–2017 · leading case: Matthew A. Goldstein, PLLC v. United States Dep't of State, 851 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matthew A. Goldstein, PLLC v. United States Dep't of State, 851 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Soon after the State Department promulgated its 2013 regulation explicitly excluding legal services from the ITAR’s definition of brokering activities, Goldstein sought an advisory opinion from the Department pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 126.9 (a), asking whether six categories of…”

Matthew A. Goldstein, Pllc v. United States Dep't of State, 153 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 22 C.F.R. § 126.9 (a). Any request for an advisory opinion “must be made in writing” and “must outline in detail the equipment, its usage, the security classification (if any) of the articles or related technical data, and the country or countries involved.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.