This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

70941 

Vol. 77, No. 229 

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1246; Notice No. 25– 

12–16–SC] 

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., 

Model EMB–550 Airplane; Interaction 

of Systems and Structures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Embraer S.A. Model 

EMB–550 airplane. This airplane will 

have a novel or unusual design 

feature(s) associated with the interaction 

of systems and structures. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

These proposed special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before January 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number [FAA–2012–1246] 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov/, 

including any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at 

http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1178; facsimile 

425–227–1232. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We may change these special 

conditions based on the comments we 

receive. 

Background 

On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. 

applied for a type certificate for their 

new Model EMB–550 airplane. The 

Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of 

a new family of jet airplanes designed 

for corporate flight, fractional, charter, 

and private owner operations. The 

aircraft has a conventional configuration 

with low wing and T-tail empennage. 

The primary structure is metal with 

composite empennage and control 

surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane 

is designed for 8 passengers, with a 

maximum of 12 passengers. It is 

equipped with two Honeywell 

HTF7500–E medium bypass ratio 

turbofan engines mounted on aft 

fuselage pylons. Each engine produces 

approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust 

for normal takeoff. The primary flight 

controls consist of hydraulically 

powered fly-by-wire elevators, aileron 

and rudder, controlled by the pilot or 

copilot sidestick. 

The Model Embraer EMB–550 

airplane is equipped with systems that, 

directly or as a result of failure or 

malfunction, affect its structural 

performance. Current regulations do not 

take into account loads for the airplane 

due to the effects of systems on 

structural performance including 

normal operation and failure conditions 

with strength levels related to 

probability of occurrence. Special 

conditions are needed to account for 

these features. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, 

Embraer S.A. must show that the Model 

EMB–550 airplane meets the applicable 

provisions of part 25, as amended by 

Amendments 25–1 through 25–127 

thereto. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the Model EMB–550 airplane 

because of a novel or unusual design 

feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same or similar novel 

or unusual design feature, the special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under § 21.101. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Embraer S.A. Model 

EMB–550 airplane must comply with 

the fuel vent and exhaust emission 

requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
70942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

noise certification requirements of 14 

CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a 

finding of regulatory adequacy under 

§ 611 of Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise 

Control Act of 1972.’’ 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with § 11.38, and they become part of 

the type-certification basis under 

§ 21.17(a)(2). 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 

airplane is equipped with systems that, 

directly or as a result of failure or 

malfunction, affect its structural 

performance. Current regulations do not 

take into account loads for the airplane 

due to the effects of systems on 

structural performance including 

normal operation and failure conditions 

with strength levels related to 

probability of occurrence. Special 

conditions are needed to account for 

these features. 

These special conditions define 

criteria to be used in the assessment of 

the effects of these systems on 

structures. The general approach of 

accounting for the effect of system 

failures on structural performance 

would be extended to include any 

system in which partial or complete 

failure, alone or in combination with 

other system partial or complete 

failures, would affect structural 

performance. 

Discussion 

These airplanes are equipped with 

systems that, directly or as a result of 

failure or malfunction, affect its 

structural performance. Current 

regulations do not take into account 

loads for the aircraft due to the effects 

of systems on structural performance 

including normal operation and failure 

conditions with strength levels related 

to probability of occurrence. These 

special conditions define criteria to be 

used in the assessment of the effects of 

these systems on structures. 

Special conditions have been applied 

on past airplane programs to require 

consideration of the effects of systems 

on structures. The regulatory authorities 

and industry developed standardized 

criteria in the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum 

based on the criteria defined in 

Advisory Circular 25.672, Active Flight 

Controls, dated November 11, 1983. The 

ARAC recommendations have been 

incorporated in European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) Certification 

Specifications (CS) 25.302 and CS 25 

Appendix K. FAA rulemaking on this 

subject is not complete, thus the need 

for the special conditions. 

The proposed special conditions are 

similar to those previously applied to 

other airplane models and to CS 25.302. 

The major differences between these 

proposed special conditions and the 

current CS 25.302 are as follows: 

1. Both these special conditions and 

CS 25.302 specify the design load 

conditions to be considered. In 

paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 2(b)(2)(i) of these 

special conditions, the special 

conditions clarify that, in some cases, 

different load conditions are to be 

considered due to other special 

conditions or equivalent level of safety 

findings. 

2. Paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) of these special 

conditions include the additional 

ground-handling conditions of 

§§ 25.493(d) and 25.503. These 

conditions are added in case the 

Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane 

has systems that affect braking and 

pivoting. 

3. Both CS 25.302 and paragraph 

(2)(d) of these special conditions allow 

consideration of the probability of being 

in a dispatched configuration when 

assessing subsequent failures and 

potential ‘‘continuation of flight’’ loads. 

However, these special conditions also 

allow using probability when assessing 

failures that induce loads at the ‘‘time 

of occurrence,’’ whereas CS 25.302 does 

not. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the Embraer 

S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. Should 

Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a 

change to the type certificate to include 

another model incorporating the same 

novel or unusual design feature, the 

special conditions would apply to that 

model as well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on one model 

of airplanes. It is not a rule of general 

applicability. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes the 

following special conditions as part of 

the type certification basis for Embraer 

S.A. Model EMB–550 airplanes to 

address the effects of systems on 

structures. 

1. General Interaction of Systems and 

Structures 

For airplanes equipped with systems 

that affect structural performance, either 

directly or as a result of a failure or 

malfunction, the influence of these 

systems and their failure conditions 

must be taken into account when 

showing compliance with the 

requirements of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 

subparts C and D. 

The following criteria must be used 

for showing compliance with these 

special conditions for airplanes 

equipped with flight control systems, 

autopilots, stability augmentation 

systems, load alleviation systems, fuel 

management systems, and other systems 

that either directly or as a result of 

failure or malfunction affect structural 

performance. If these special conditions 

are used for other systems, it may be 

necessary to adapt the criteria to the 

specific system. 

(a) The criteria defined herein only 

address the direct structural 

consequences of the system responses 

and performances and cannot be 

considered in isolation but should be 

included in the overall safety evaluation 

of the airplane. These criteria may in 

some instances duplicate standards 

already established for this evaluation. 

These criteria are only applicable to 

structure in which failure could prevent 

continued safe flight and landing. 

Specific criteria that define acceptable 

limits on handling characteristics or 

stability requirements when operating 

in the system degraded or inoperative 

mode are not provided in these special 

conditions. 

(b) The following definitions are 

applicable to these special conditions. 

(1) Structural performance: Capability 

of the airplane to meet the structural 

requirements of 14 CFR part 25. 

(2) Flight limitations: Limitations that 

can be applied to the airplane flight 

conditions following an in-flight 

occurrence and that are included in the 

flight manual (e.g., speed limitations 

and avoidance of severe weather 

conditions). 

(3) Operational limitations: 

Limitations, including flight limitations, 

that can be applied to the airplane 

operating conditions before dispatch 

(e.g., fuel, payload, and Master 

Minimum Equipment List limitations). 

(4) Probabilistic terms: The 

probabilistic terms (i.e., probable, 

improbable, and extremely improbable) 

used in these special conditions are the 

same as those used in § 25.1309. 

(5) Failure condition: The term 

‘‘failure condition’’ is the same as that 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 70943 

used in § 25.1309. However, these 

special conditions apply only to system 

failure conditions that affect the 

structural performance of the airplane 

(e.g., system failure conditions that 

induce loads, change the response of the 

airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot 

actions, or lower flutter margins). 

2. Effect on Systems and Structures 

The following criteria are used in 

determining the influence of a system 

and its failure conditions on the 

airplane structure. 

(a) System fully operative. With the 

system fully operative, the following 

apply: 

(1) Limit loads must be derived in all 

normal operating configurations of the 

system from all the limit conditions 

specified in Subpart C (or defined by 

special condition or equivalent level of 

safety in lieu of those specified in 

Subpart C), taking into account any 

special behavior of such a system or 

associated functions or any effect on the 

structural performance of the airplane 

that may occur up to the limit loads. In 

particular, any significant nonlinearity 

(rate of displacement of control surface, 

thresholds or any other system 

nonlinearities) must be accounted for in 

a realistic or conservative way when 

deriving limit loads from limit 

conditions. 

(2) The airplane must meet the 

strength requirements of part 25 (static 

strength, residual strength), using the 

specified factors to derive ultimate loads 

from the limit loads defined above. The 

effect of nonlinearities must be 

investigated beyond limit conditions to 

ensure the behavior of the system 

presents no anomaly compared to the 

behavior below limit conditions. 

However, conditions beyond limit 

conditions need not be considered when 

it can be shown that the airplane has 

design features that will not allow it to 

exceed those limit conditions. 

(3) The airplane must meet the 

aeroelastic stability requirements of 

§ 25.629. 

(b) System in the failure condition. 

For any system failure condition not 

shown to be extremely improbable, the 

following apply: 

(1) At the time of occurrence. Starting 

from 1-g level flight conditions, a 

realistic scenario, including pilot 

corrective actions, must be established 

to determine the loads occurring at the 

time of failure and immediately after 

failure. 

(i) For static strength substantiation, 

these loads, multiplied by an 

appropriate factor of safety that is 

related to the probability of occurrence 

of the failure, are ultimate loads to be 

considered for design. The factor of 

safety (FS) is defined in Figure 1. 

(ii) For residual strength 

substantiation, the airplane must be able 

to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate 

loads defined in paragraph 2(b)(1)(i) of 

these special conditions. For 

pressurized cabins, these loads must be 

combined with the normal operating 

differential pressure. 

(iii) Freedom from aeroelastic 

instability must be shown up to the 

speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For 

failure conditions that result in speeds 

beyond VC/MC, freedom from 

aeroelastic instability must be shown to 

increased speeds, so that the margins 

intended by § 25.629(b)(2) are 

maintained. 

(iv) Failures of the system that result 

in forced structural vibrations (e.g., 

oscillatory failures) must not produce 

loads that could result in detrimental 

deformation of primary structure. 

(2) For the continuation of the flight. 

For the airplane, in the system failed 

state and considering any appropriate 

reconfiguration and flight limitations, 

the following apply: 

(i) The loads derived from the 

following conditions (or conditions 

defined by special conditions or 

equivalent level of safety in lieu of the 

following special conditions) at speeds 

up to VC/MC, or the speed limitation 

prescribed for the remainder of the 

flight, must be determined: 

(A) The limit symmetrical 

maneuvering conditions specified in 

§§ 25.331 and 25.345. 

(B) The limit gust and turbulence 

conditions specified in §§ 25.341 and 

25.345. 

(C) The limit rolling conditions 

specified in § 25.349 and the limit 

unsymmetrical conditions specified in 

§§ 25.367, 25.427(b), and 25.427(c). 

(D) The limit yaw maneuvering 

conditions specified in § 25.351. 

(E) The limit ground loading 

conditions specified in §§ 25.473, 

25.491, 25.493(d) and 25.503. 

(ii) For static strength substantiation, 

each part of the structure must be able 

to withstand the loads in paragraph 

2(b)(2)(i) of these special conditions 

multiplied by a factor of safety 

depending on the probability of being in 

this failure state. The factor of safety 

(FS) is defined in Figure 2. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with EP28NO12.001</GPH>
70944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Qj = (Tj)(Pj) where: 

Tj = Average time spent in failure condition 

j (in hours) 

Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode 

j (per hour) 

Note: If Pj is greater than 10¥3 per flight 

hour then a 1.5 factor of safety must be 

applied to all limit load conditions specified 

in Subpart C. 

(iii) For residual strength 

substantiation, the airplane must be able 

to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate 

loads defined in paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of 

the special conditions. For pressurized 

cabins, these loads must be combined 

with the normal operating differential 

pressure. 

(iv) If the loads induced by the failure 

condition have a significant effect on 

fatigue or damage tolerance then their 

effects must be taken into account. 

(v) Freedom from aeroelastic 

instability must be shown up to a speed 

determined from Figure 3. Flutter 

clearance speeds V′ and V′′ may be 

based on the speed limitation specified 

for the remainder of the flight using the 

margins defined by § 25.629(b). 

V′ = Clearance speed as defined by 

§ 25.629(b)(2). 

V′′ = Clearance speed as defined by 

§ 25.629(b)(1). 

Qj = (Tj)(Pj) where: 

Tj = Average time spent in failure condition 

j (in hours) 

Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode 

j (per hour) 

Note: If Pj is greater than 10¥3 per flight 

hour, then the flutter clearance speed 

must not be less than V′′. 

(vi) Freedom from aeroelastic 

instability must also be shown up to V′ 

in Figure 3 above, for any probable 

system failure condition combined with 

any damage required or selected for 

investigation by § 25.571(b). 

(3) Consideration of certain failure 

conditions may be required by other 

sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of 

calculated system reliability. Where 

analysis shows the probability of these 

failure conditions to be less than 10¥9, 

criteria other than those specified in this 

paragraph may be used for structural 

substantiation to show continued safe 

flight and landing. 

(c) Failure indications. For system 

failure detection and indication, the 

following apply: 

(1) The system must be checked for 

failure conditions, not extremely 

improbable, that degrade the structural 

capability below the level required by 

14 CFR part 25 or significantly reduce 

the reliability of the remaining system. 

As far as reasonably practicable, the 

flightcrew must be made aware of these 

failures before flight. Certain elements 

of the control system, such as 

mechanical and hydraulic components, 

may use special periodic inspections, 

and electronic components may use 

daily checks, in lieu of detection and 

indication systems to achieve the 

objective of this requirement. These 

certification maintenance requirements 

must be limited to components that are 

not readily detectable by normal 

detection and indication systems and 

where service history shows that 

inspections will provide an adequate 

level of safety. 

(2) The existence of any failure 

condition, not extremely improbable, 

during flight that could significantly 

affect the structural capability of the 

airplane and for which the associated 

reduction in airworthiness can be 

minimized by suitable flight limitations, 

must be signaled to the flightcrew. For 

example, failure conditions that result 

in a factor of safety between the airplane 

strength and the loads of Subpart C 

below 1.25, or flutter margins below V′′, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with EP28NO12.002</GPH> EP28NO12.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 70945 

must be signaled to the flightcrew 

during flight. 

(d) Dispatch with known failure 

conditions. If the airplane is to be 

dispatched in a known system failure 

condition that affects structural 

performance, or affects the reliability of 

the remaining system to maintain 

structural performance, then the 

provisions of these special conditions 

must be met, including the provisions of 

paragraph 2(a) for the dispatched 

condition, and paragraph 2(b) for 

subsequent failures. Expected 

operational limitations may be taken 

into account in establishing Pj as the 

probability of failure occurrence for 

determining the safety margin in Figure 

1 of these special conditions. Flight 

limitations and expected operational 

limitations may be taken into account in 

establishing Qj as the combined 

probability of being in the dispatched 

failure condition and the subsequent 

failure condition for the safety margins 

in Figures 2 and 3 of these special 

conditions. These limitations must be 

such that the probability of being in this 

combined failure state and then 

subsequently encountering limit load 

conditions is extremely improbable. No 

reduction in these safety margins is 

allowed if the subsequent system failure 

rate is greater than 10¥3 per hour. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 21, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28768 Filed 11–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 774 

[Docket No. 120330233–2160–01] 

RIN 0694–AF64 

Revisions to the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR): Control of Military 

Electronic Equipment and Related 

Items the President Determines No 

Longer Warrant Control Under the 

United States Munitions List (USML) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule describes 

how certain articles the President 

determines no longer warrant control 

under the United States Munitions List 

(USML) would be controlled on the 

Commerce Control List (CCL). Those 

articles and the USML categories under 

which they are currently controlled are: 

Military electronics (Category XI) and 

certain cryogenic and superconductive 

equipment designed for installation in 

military vehicles and that can operate 

while in motion (Categories VI, VII, VIII, 

and XV). Military electronics and 

related items would be controlled by 

new Export Control Classification 

Numbers (ECCNs) 3A611, 3B611, 

3D611, and 3E611 proposed by this rule. 

Cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment for military vehicles and 

related items would be controlled under 

new ECCNs 9A620, 9B620, 9D620, and 

9E620. This proposed rule also would 

amend ECCNs 7A001 and 7A101 to 

apply the missile technology reason for 

control only to items in those ECCNs on 

the Missile Technology Control Regime 

(MTCR) Annex. 

This is one in a planned series of 

proposed rules describing how various 

types of articles the President 

determines, as part of the 

Administration’s Export Control Reform 

Initiative, no longer warrant USML 

control, would be controlled on the CCL 

and by the EAR. This proposed rule is 

being published in conjunction with a 

proposed rule from the Department of 

State, Directorate of Defense Trade 

Controls, which would amend the list of 

articles controlled by USML Category 

XI. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The identification 

number for this rulemaking is BIS– 

2012–0045. 

• By email directly to 

publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include 

RIN 0694–AF64 in the subject line. 

• By mail or delivery to Regulatory 

Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Room 2099B, 14th Street and 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694–AF64. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Baker, Director, Electronics and 

Materials Division, Office of National 

Security and Technology Transfer 

Controls, (202) 482–5534, 

brian.baker@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 15, 2011, as part of the 

Administration’s ongoing Export 

Control Reform Initiative, BIS published 

a proposed rule (76 FR 41958) (‘‘the July 

15 proposed rule’’) that set forth a 

framework for how articles the 

President determines, in accordance 

with section 38(f) of the Arms Export 

Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), 

would no longer warrant control on the 

United States Munitions List (USML) 

instead would be controlled on the 

Commerce Control List (CCL). 

BIS also published a proposed rule 

(76 FR 68675, November 7, 2011), 

primarily dealing with aircraft and 

related items (‘‘the November 7 

proposed rule’’) that made additions 

and modifications to some of the 

provisions of the July 15 proposed rule. 

Following the structure of the July 15 

and November 7 proposed rules, this 

proposed rule describes BIS’s proposal 

for controlling under the EAR’s CCL 

certain military electronic equipment 

and related articles now controlled by 

the ITAR’s USML Category XI. This 

proposed rule also would specifically 

implement in U.S. export control 

regulations Category ML20 Munitions 

List of the Wassenaar Arrangement on 

Export Controls for Conventional Arms 

and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies 

(Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List 

or WAML), which pertains to certain 

cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment. These items are currently 

controlled by ‘‘catch all’’ provisions of 

the ITAR’s USML Categories VI, VII, 

VIII, and XV. Finally, this proposed rule 

would correct two ECCNs in CCL 

Category 7 to apply the missile 

technology reason for control only to 

items that are on the MTCR Annex. 

The changes described in this 

proposed rule and the State 

Department’s proposed amendment to 

Category XI of the USML are based on 

a review of Category XI by the Defense 

Department, which worked with the 

Departments of State and Commerce in 

preparing the proposed amendments. 

The review was focused on identifying 

the types of articles that are now 

controlled by USML Category XI that are 

either (i) inherently military and 

otherwise warrant control on the USML 

or (ii) if it is of a type common to nonmilitary electronic equipment 

applications, possess parameters or 

characteristics that provide a critical 

military or intelligence advantage to the 

United States, and that are almost 

exclusively available from the United 

States. If an article satisfied one or both 

of those criteria, the article remained on 

the USML. If an article did not satisfy 

either criterion but was nonetheless a 

type of article that is, as a result of 

differences in form and fit, ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for military applications or 

for the intelligence applications 

described in proposed ECCN 3A611.b, it 

was identified in the new ECCNs 

proposed in this notice. The licensing 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with