45026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 774 

[Docket No. 120330233–3326–02] 

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 is the second proposed 

rule to describe how military electronics 

and certain superconducting and 

cryogenic equipment and related items 

the President determines no longer 

warrant control under the United States 

Munitions List (USML) would be 

controlled on the Commerce Control 

List (CCL). 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 action is one in a planned series 

of proposed rules that would implement 

the Administration’s Export Control 

Reform Initiative by describing how 

certain types of articles would be 

controlled on the CCL after the 

President determines that the articles no 

longer warrant USML control. 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. 

The revisions proposed in this rule 

are part of Commerce’s retrospective 

plan under EO 13563 completed in 

August 2011. Commerce’s full plan can 

be accessed at: http:// 

open.commerce.gov/news/2011/08/23/ 

commerce-plan-retrospective-analysisexisting-rules. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• By the 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 

The Export Control Reform Initiative 

This proposed rule is part of the 

Administration’s Export Control Reform 

Initiative, the objective of which is to 

protect and enhance U.S. national 

security interests. The Initiative began 

in August 2009 when President Obama 

directed the Administration to conduct 

a broad-based review of the U.S. export 

control system to identify additional 

ways to enhance national security. In 

April 2010, then-Secretary of Defense 

Robert M. Gates, describing the initial 

results of that effort, explained that 

fundamental reform of the U.S. export 

control system is necessary to enhance 

national security. Once the Department 

of State’s International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR) and its U.S. 

Munitions List (USML) are amended so 

that they control only the items that 

provide the United States with a critical 

military or intelligence advantage or 

otherwise warrant such controls, and 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) are amended to control military 

items that do not warrant USML 

controls, the U.S. export control system 

will enhance national security by (i) 

improving interoperability of U.S. 

military forces with allied countries, (ii) 

strengthening the U.S. industrial base 

by, among other things, reducing 

incentives for foreign manufacturers to 

design out and avoid U.S.-origin content 

and services, and (iii) allowing export 

control officials to focus government 

resources on transactions that pose 

greater concern. 

Pursuant to section 38(f) of the Arms 

Export Control Act (AECA), the 

President is obligated to review the 

USML ‘‘to determine what items, if any, 

no longer warrant export controls 

under’’ the AECA. The President must 

report the results of the review to 

Congress and wait 30 days before 

removing any such items from the 

USML. The report must ‘‘describe the 

nature of any controls to be imposed on 

that item under any other provision of 

law.’’ 22 U.S.C. 2778(f)(1). 

BIS has published and will continue 

to publish additional Federal Register 

notices containing proposed 

amendments to the CCL that describe 

proposed controls for additional 

categories of articles the President 

determines no longer warrant control 

under the USML. The State Department 

will publish concurrently proposed 

amendments to the USML that 

correspond to the BIS notices. BIS will 

also publish proposed rules to further 

align the CCL with the Wassenaar 

Arrangement on Export Controls for 

Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods 

and Technologies’ (Wassenaar 

Arrangement) Munitions List 

(Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List 

or WAML) and the Missile Technology 

Control Regime’s (MTCR) Equipment, 

Software and Technology Annex (MTCR 

Annex). 

Overview of This Proposed Rule 

Following the structure set forth in 

the final rule entitled ‘‘Revisions to the 

Export Administration Regulations: 

Initial Implementation of Export Control 

Reform’’ (78 FR 22660, April 16, 2013) 

(‘‘April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule’’), 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, and equipment and related 

items in category ML20 of the WAML, 

which pertains to certain cryogenic and 

superconductive 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. 

This action re-proposes moving 

export control of certain military 

electronic equipment from the USML to 

the CCL. BIS originally proposed 

transferring the control of these items to 

the EAR in 2012, in a rule entitled, 

‘‘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)’’ (77 FR 70945, 

November 28, 2012) (‘‘November 28 

(military electronics) rule’’). That action 

was issued simultaneously with a 

proposed rule by the Department of 

State, entitled, ‘‘Amendment to the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations: Revisions of US Munitions 

List Category XI and Definition for 

‘Equipment’ ’’ (77 FR 70958, November 

28, 2012) (‘‘State’s November 28, 2012 

(military electronics) rule’’) 

(collectively, the ‘‘November 28, 2012 

(military electronics) rules’’). The 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45027 

provisions in this second proposed rule 

by BIS are based on a review of public 

comments to the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule, and on a review of 

USML Category XI and WAML category 

ML20 by the Department of Defense, 

which worked with the Departments of 

State and Commerce in preparing these 

proposed amendments. BIS is proposing 

this action a second time because the 

comments suggested changes from the 

original proposed rule that are 

sufficiently distinct from the November 

28 (military electronics) rule to warrant 

providing them to the public for further 

review and to obtain public input on the 

feasibility of implementing the rule as 

re-proposed. The criteria used in this 

review are described in the November 

28 (military electronics) rule. See 77 FR 

70945. 

The revisions proposed in this rule 

are part of Commerce’s retrospective 

plan under EO 13563 completed in 

August 2011. Commerce’s full plan can 

be accessed at: http:// 

open.commerce.gov/news/2011/08/23/ 

commerce-plan-retrospective-analysisexisting-rules. 

Consistency of Controls 

This proposed rule would alter the 

scope of ECCNs 3B611, 3E611, 9B620 

and 9E620 from what was proposed in 

the November 28 (military electronics) 

rule. Upon review, BIS determined that 

standard elements for test, inspection, 

and production equipment ECCNs and 

for technology ECCNs would reduce the 

possibility of confusion. Accordingly, 

BIS adopted the elements 

‘‘development, production, repair, 

overhaul, or refurbishing’’ for test, 

inspection, and production equipment 

ECCNs in the 600 series and adopted 

‘‘development, production, operation, 

installation, maintenance, repair, 

overhaul, or refurbishing’’ for 

technology ECCNs in the 600 series (see 

78 FR 40892, 40894, July 8, 2013). This 

proposed rule would include those 

elements in 3B611, 3E611, 9B620 and 

9E620 to conform with that decision. 

Need to Avoid Ambiguous 

Classifications or Inadvertent License 

Requirements 

BIS recognizes that because 

electronics frequently are installed in 

some other commodity, they are 

particularly susceptible to ambiguous 

classification or classification under 

multiple entries on the CCL. For 

example, a given electronic device 

might also be viewed as a part for an 

aircraft, radar, computer, laser, or some 

other article. How the device is viewed 

might affect its classification on the 

CCL, which could, in turn, affect license 

requirements or licensing policy. BIS’s 

intent is that the new ECCNs proposed 

here would not increase the number of 

destinations to which a license is 

required, alter the policy under which 

license application are reviewed, or 

create any apparent instances of an item 

that is subject to the EAR being covered 

by more than one ECCN. Parties who 

believe that they can identify instances 

where the effect of the proposed rule 

would be contrary to this intent are 

encouraged to identify those instances 

in a public comment on this proposed 

rule. 

Relationship to April 16, Initial 

Implementation Rule 

The April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule will become effective on October 

15, 2013. Because any final rule 

resulting from this proposed rule would 

not become effective until after that 

date, this proposed rule and BIS’s 

responses to the public comments on 

the November 28 (military electronics) 

rule discussed below are written as if 

the April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule were already effective. Accordingly, 

commenters on this proposed rule 

should become familiar with the April 

16 (initial implementation) rule and 

take it into account in formulating their 

comments on this proposed rule. 

Although BIS encourages public 

understanding of the entire April 16 

(initial implementation) rule, the 

provisions listed below are likely to be 

particularly useful because they provide 

background for understanding terms 

and concepts that are used extensively 

in this proposed rule and in the 

discussion of the public comments. The 

listed page numbers refer to pages in the 

Federal Register published on April 16, 

2013. 

• ‘‘600 series:’’ preamble discussion, 

pages 22661–22663 and 22691; 

regulatory text, page 22727. 

• Definition of ‘‘component:’’ 

regulatory text, page 22727. 

• Definitions of ‘‘end item’’ and 

‘‘part:’’ regulatory text, page 22728. 

• Definition of ‘‘specially designed:’’ 

preamble discussion, pages 22682– 

22691; regulatory text, pages 22728– 

22729. 

• ‘‘Dual licensing:’’ preamble 

discussion, page 22664–22665; 

regulatory text, page 22707. 

• License Exceptions TMP, RPL, 

GOV, TSU and STA: preamble 

discussion, pages 22669–22674; 

regulatory text, pages 22709–22720 and 

22726. 

• ‘‘Order of review’’: preamble 

discussion, page 22704; regulatory text, 

pages 22735–22736. 

Public Comments on the November 28 

(Military Electronics) Rule and BIS 

Responses 

BIS received comments from 17 

organizations and one individual, 

proposing a number of ideas for revising 

the proposed rule. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed general approval of 

transferring some military items from 

the USML. As part of their comments, 

they noted that (i) electronic parts and 

components are rarely almost 

exclusively available from the United 

States; (ii) current USML requirements 

impose a heavy cost burden on low 

value parts and US manufacturers may 

thus be more inclined to continue 

making the parts if that burden is 

reduced; and (iii) the removal of a ‘‘seethrough’’ rule on electronic parts and 

components will reduce the incentive 

for foreign customers in non-embargoed 

countries to refuse to buy US-origin 

parts. One commenter approved of BIS’s 

use of ‘‘specially designed’’ in ‘‘600 

series’’ ECCNs because it would help 

standardize the identification of which 

items are and are not controlled. One 

commenter noted that placing 

monolithic microware integrated circuit 

power amplifiers in 3A611.c and 

discrete power transistors in 3A611.d 

are positive moves that clearly define 

the articles covered. 

Response: BIS agrees and these 

comments are consistent with the 

second proposed rule. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern that the rule did not 

refer to a Department of Defense review 

process for low observable and counter 

low observable related items moving 

from the USML to the CCL. 

Response: In accordance with 

Executive Order 12981, as amended, the 

Department of Defense has authority to 

review license applications submitted to 

the Department of Commerce. BIS 

expects that Department to continue 

existing review policies for any items 

referred to by these commenters that are 

added to the CCL. In any event, no 

change to the regulations is necessary to 

implement this policy. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended adding an interpretation 

to Part 770 clarifying that items subject 

to a parameter-based CCL entry will be 

controlled by such entry if the item 

meets the parameter at the time of 

export, and not by whether it has 

potential capability (e.g., dormant 

capability) to meet the control, so long 

as the additional capability cannot be 

executed by the end-user without 

additional activity by the exporters. 

Exporters would be required to obtain 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

any necessary authorizations to activate 

such a capability for a customer. 

Response: Items with characteristics 

that are within the scope of the 

parameters of a particular ECCN are 

classified under that ECCN. BIS believes 

that no change is needed to the 

regulatory text from what was published 

in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

more information about the order of 

precedence or order of review was 

needed for the public to be able to 

classify items reliably. Many items 

might be reasonably classified under a 

USML category or an ECCN, more than 

one ECCN, or more than one ECCN 

paragraph. 

Response: BIS received comments 

along this line in response to other 

proposed rules. The April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule includes an order 

of review, which is intended to 

eliminate the possible uncertainty noted 

by these commenters. 

Comment: Commenters expressed 

concern that moving items from the 

USML to the CCL would increase the 

number of licenses that some companies 

would need for two reasons. 

First, in many instances, the 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls 

(DDTC) in practice issues licenses 

covering items that are subject to the 

EAR, when they are being exported in 

conjunction with defense articles that 

are subject to the ITAR. The commenter 

suggested that these circumstances 

might increase the time needed to gain 

approval for transactions that require 

the export of both USML and CCL items, 

because BIS licenses generally take 

longer to obtain than DDTC licenses. 

The commenter proposed as a solution 

allowing DDTC to issue licenses for 

items on the CCL in such transactions. 

This commenter suggested that a formal 

process for DDTC to issue licenses for 

items that are subject to the EAR be 

authorized. 

Second, license exceptions under the 

EAR do not apply to some transactions 

that would be exempt from license 

requirements under the ITAR. Two 

solutions were proposed. First, amend 

license exceptions under the EAR to 

make sure that they cover transactions 

that would qualify for an exemption 

under the ITAR. Second, create a new 

license exemption that authorizes using 

ITAR exemptions for transactions that 

are subject to the EAR. 

Response: The potential problem of 

needing both a DDTC and a BIS license 

for a single transaction is sometimes 

referred to as the dual licensing issue. 

BIS’s and DDTC’s April 16 (initial 

implementation) rules address the dual 

licensing issue with a procedure for 

DDTC to issue licenses for items that are 

subject to the EAR in situations where 

a single transaction includes exports or 

reexports of items that are subject the 

ITAR and items that are subject to the 

EAR. BIS welcomes comments on 

whether these provisions effectively 

address the issues identified in the 

comments. 

The April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule revises several EAR license 

exceptions to make them comparable to 

ITAR license exemptions. BIS believes 

that the second proposed solution— 

amending the EAR to allow use of ITAR 

license exemptions for transactions that 

are subject to the EAR—would create 

legal and policy complications that can 

be avoided by simply amending existing 

EAR license exceptions. BIS welcomes 

comments on whether the revisions to 

license exceptions in the April 16 

(initial implementation) rule effectively 

address the issues identified in the 

comments with respect to military 

electronic items. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended several steps to deal with 

the expected increase in the number of 

license applications to be submitted to 

BIS, such as: Increase staffing levels; 

‘‘enhance’’ the DOC licensing process to 

reduce cycle times; include reviewing 

agencies in efforts to streamline the 

license application review process; and 

leverage lessons learned and best 

practices from the Department of State, 

which has reduced processing time in 

recent years. 

Response: BIS is taking these steps. 

No revision to the EAR is needed to do 

so. 

Comments Concerning Proposed ECCNs 

4A611, 5A611 and 6A611 

Proposed ECCNs 4A611, 5A611 and 

6A611 refer readers to ECCN 3A611. 

They are included to alert readers that 

military computers, military 

telecommunications equipment and 

military radars would be controlled by 

ECCN 3A611, a structure more similar 

to that of the USML, which controls all 

three in Category XI, than that of the 

CCL, which controls computers in 

Category 4, telecommunications 

equipment in Category 5, and radars in 

Category 6. 

Comment: Commenters expressed a 

belief that following the USML pattern 

would make classification more difficult 

than would following the CCL pattern. 

Response: This proposed rule 

republishes those three cross-reference 

ECCNs along with a fourth one: ECCN 

7A613, which refers readers to 3A611 

for military avionics and navigation 

items. BIS continues to seek comments 

on which pattern would be easier to 

understand and comply with. One 

pattern would create substantive ECCNs 

in five CCL Categories—Category 4 

(computers), Category 5 

(telecommunications), Category 6 

(sensors and lasers), Category 7 

(avionics), and Category 3 (all other 

military electronics not described on the 

USML). The other pattern would place 

all substantive control text for military 

electronics in Category 3 with cross 

references to Category 3 in Categories 4, 

5, 6 and 7. The advantage of breaking 

the different types out among the 

categories is that they would be 

described in more detail and in the CCL 

categories that control similar dual-use 

items. The disadvantage would be that 

20 new substantive 600 series ECCNs 

would need to be created that all 

contain essentially contain the same 

descriptions as compared to 4 new 

substantive and four cross reference 

ECCNs that would be required by the 

second alternative. 

Comment: A commenter requested a 

six-month grace period to implement 

the changes that would be required by 

the proposed rule. 

Response: BIS plans to make the final 

rule adding to the CCL military 

electronic systems the President 

determines no longer warrant control 

under the USML effective 180 days after 

publication. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the EAR contain no definition of 

‘‘avionics,’’ making the decision to 

classify an item under Category 7— 

Navigation and Avionics or Category 

9—Aerospace and Propulsion, difficult. 

The commenter stated as an example 

that a control panel for anti-ice bleed air 

valves might belong under either 

Category 7 or Category 9, depending on 

whether it contains a digital circuit even 

though the function performed is the 

same. 

Response: BIS is making no changes 

to this proposed rule in response to this 

comment, because it is outside the 

scope of the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. However, BIS will look 

into ways to address elsewhere the 

issues raised by this commenter. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

policy implications of the phrase, ‘‘parts 

and components n.e.s. in ECCNs 7A994 

and 9A991.d,’’ are unclear with the 

addition of the proposed definition of 

‘‘specially designed.’’ The commenter 

noted that neither ECCN uses the term 

‘‘specially designed,’’ and stated that the 

ECCNs have never been understood to 

control EAR99 items common to nonaircraft applications. 

Response: BIS is making no changes 

to this proposed rule in response to this 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45029 

comment because it is outside the scope 

of the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. BIS does not intend 

that anything in this proposed rule or in 

the April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule make a currently EAR99 item 

controlled under either ECCN 7A994 or 

9A991. BIS will look into ways to 

address elsewhere the issues raised by 

this commenter. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern over use of the term 

‘‘specially designed’’ in the November 

28 (military electronics) rule when the 

final rule defining that term had not 

been published. The commenters noted 

that they could not analyze the impact 

of the term without knowing its precise 

language. 

Response: The April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule included the 

definition of ‘‘specially designed’’ that 

will apply to this proposed rule has now 

been published. See 78 FR 22682–91, 

22728–29. 

Comment: Several commenters 

proposed features that they thought the 

definition of ‘‘specially designed’’ 

should have. These recommendations 

were: 

• Include in subsection (a)(1) of the 

definition application-specific 

components of end items for which the 

control parameters or character can be 

ascertained; 

• Restrict the ‘‘necessary’’ standard 

for components set forth in subsection 

(a)(2) to components for which there is 

no basis to assess the controlled 

parameters or character of the end item 

in which the component is 

incorporated; 

• Create a note that provides an 

appropriate industry definition of 

ASICs; 

• Capture the natural meaning of the 

term ‘‘specially designed,’’ and avoid 

overarching exclusions and exceptions; 

and 

• Eliminate reference in subsection 

(b)(3) to ‘‘form and fit’’ for components 

of equivalent performance. 

It is logical and feasible to tie the 

control of ‘‘specially designed’’ 

components to the related end-item, but 

only to the extent that the ‘‘specially 

designed’’ component is peculiarly 

responsible for the controlled 

parameters of the controlled character as 

a whole of the end item. 

Form and fit adapted to a particular 

end item or special protective packaging 

adapted to the environment in which 

that end-item functions should not 

make a part or component specially 

designed for a particular end item if the 

function that the part or component 

performs is the same as that it would 

perform in some other end-item where 

a different form or fit is required, or 

such special protective packaging or 

housing is not needed. 

Consider modifications to basic 

hardware as minor and, therefore not 

‘‘specially designed’’ if they: (a) Are 

unclassified; (b) are not for the purpose 

of improving the item’s resistance or 

hardness to nuclear radiation, nuclear 

electromagnetic pulse, or resistance to 

chemicals or biological agents 

controlled under the ITAR; and c) are 

not made to achieve special designated 

military properties (e.g., special low 

observable, acoustic, electromagnetic 

properties, hot section technology for 

military gas turbine engines, or 

characteristics identified in the 

proposed Supplement No. 4 to Part 740 

of the EAR). 

Response: Following the closing 

comment period date for the November 

28 (military electronics) rule, the April 

16 (initial implementation) rule set forth 

the definition of ‘‘specially designed.’’ 

This definition provides that 

modifications to a part or component 

made solely to fit a particular 

commodity do not make the part or 

component specially designed. The 

definition also states that certain 

specific parts are not specially designed. 

The definition is not limited to parts or 

components that are peculiarly 

responsible for achieving the control 

parameters of the end item, nor does it 

exclude modifications or packaging 

applied to a part or component adapted 

to the environment in which the enditem performs. Although the notion of a 

short ‘‘natural meaning’’ definition is 

interesting, experience has indicated 

that determining the actual purpose for 

which something was designed is often 

difficult and can lead different readers 

to different conclusions based on the 

same sets of facts. BIS believes that the 

definition set forth in April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule provides a 

reasonable, repeatable, verifiable, and as 

certain as possible framework for 

determining which parts and 

components are and are not ‘‘specially 

designed.’’ However, BIS welcomes 

comments regarding the impact the term 

‘‘specially designed’’ has on the ECCNs 

in this proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended removing minor parts 

and components in normal commercial 

use to which minor modifications have 

been made from the catch-all paragraphs 

for the 600 series ECCNs, arguing that 

such common hardware does not 

warrant this level of control. 

Response: BIS is not adopting this 

recommendation. License requirements 

on parts and components that are 

specially designed for military 

equipment, even if they do not give the 

military equipment its military 

character, can serve the U.S. 

government’s national security and 

foreign policy interests in being able to 

monitor, control, and otherwise have 

visibility into the supply chain of the 

parts and components that are necessary 

to keep military equipment functioning. 

The U.S. government has made a 

determination that such parts and 

components, which are now ITAR 

controlled, do not warrant all the 

controls of the ITAR. The government 

has not made, and does not intend to 

make, a determination that such items 

do not warrant control at all. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

BIS should respect prior commodity 

jurisdiction rulings. The U.S. 

government has already determined that 

these items do not warrant control on 

the ITAR as it currently exists. 

Therefore, they should not warrant 

control under 600 series ECCNs. 

Response: Items not currently on the 

USML, in an ECCN that ends with 

‘‘018,’’ or in ECCN 0A918, have been 

determined not to be military items. BIS 

confirmed in General Order No. 5 in the 

April 16 (initial implementation rule) 

that one may conclude that such items 

within the scope of a Commodity 

Jurisdiction (‘‘CJ’’) determination are not 

600 series items (See 78 FR 22660, 

22708, April 16, 2013). If readers believe 

that this proposed rule would do so, 

they should submit a comment 

indicating specifically what items in 

ECCNs other than those described above 

or what EAR99 items they believe 

would be moved to the 600 series by 

this proposed rule. 

Comments on ECCN 3A101 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended replacing the phrase 

‘‘usable in missiles’’ with ‘‘specially 

designed for use in missiles,’’ stating 

that the former language could lead to 

controlling almost any analog to digital 

converter because it would be 

impossible to prove that it could not be 

used in some capacity in anything 

considered a missile. This same 

commenter recommended removing 

paragraph .a.1 from ECCN 3A101, which 

applies to analog to digital converters 

that are ‘‘ ‘Specially designed’ to meet 

military specifications for ruggedized 

equipment,’’ because published military 

specifications for ruggedized equipment 

address a number of characteristics that 

are not uniquely military. 

Response: The phrases ‘‘usable in 

missiles’’ and ‘‘ ‘[s]pecially designed’ to 

meet military specifications for 

ruggedized equipment’’ are close 

paraphrases that accurately convey the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

meaning of the corresponding language 

in Category II, Item 14, 14.A.1 of the 

MTCR Annex. The ECCNs at issue 

implement the controls described in the 

MTCR Annex. The changes that this 

commenter proposes would alter ECCN 

3A101 sufficiently that it would no 

longer accurately convey the meaning of 

the Annex. Therefore, BIS is not making 

this change. BIS notes that the control 

phrase ‘‘usable in missiles’’ is indeed 

substantially broader in scope than the 

control phrase ‘‘specially designed.’’ BIS 

encourages the public to review the 

definition of the term in EAR section 

772 for purposes of making 

classification determinations of items 

that are potentially within the scope of 

ECCNs that use the phrase ‘‘usable in 

missiles.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

adding analog-to-digital converters to 

ECCN 3A101.a is a positive change, but 

thought that doing so was inconsistent 

with the other changes that were adding 

electronic items from the USML to 

ECCN 3A611. The commenter thought 

the departure from the standard pattern 

would cause confusion. 

Response: BIS proposed adding these 

analog-to-digital converters to ECCN 

3A101.a because that paragraph 

currently addresses those analog-todigital converters by referring readers to 

the USML. BIS believes that 

implementing the EAR control in the 

paragraph that currently refers readers 

to the USML for controls on the same 

commodities would be less confusing 

than adding these analog-to-digital 

converters to a new 600 series ECCN. 

This proposed rule slightly revises the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

language to conform more closely to the 

MTCR text, but continues to control 

these analog-to-digital converters under 

ECCN 3A101.a. BIS invites further 

comment on whether controlling these 

analog-to-digital converters in ECCN 

3A101 or in ECCN 3A611 would be 

easier for readers of the EAR. 

Comments on ECCN 3A611 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended changing the LVS 

paragraph in ECCN 3A611 to read 

$1500, N/A for 3A611.c, to be consistent 

with other ECCN entries that contain 

similar paragraph restrictions. 

Response: BIS agrees that the 

proposed rule phrasing was not 

consistent with the pattern used in most 

ECCNs. To improve consistency and 

clarity, this proposed phrases the LVS 

limit as $1500 for 3A611.a, .d through 

.h and .x; N/A for 3A611.c and .y 

Comment: BIS received several 

comments concerning related controls 

note number (2) in the November 28 

(military electronics) rule (related 

control note number 6 in this proposed 

rule), which reads: 

Electronic items ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

military use that are not controlled in any 

USML category but are within the scope of 

another ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN are controlled by 

that ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN. Thus, ECCN 3A611 

controls only electronic items ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a military use that are not 

otherwise within the scope of a USML 

category or ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN other than 

ECCN 3A611. For example, electronic 

components not enumerated on the USML or 

another 600 series entry that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a military aircraft controlled by 

USML Category VIII or ECCN 9A610 are 

controlled by the catch-all control in ECCN 

9A610.x. Electronic components not 

enumerated on the USML or another 600 

series entry that are ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

a military vehicle controlled by USML 

Category VII or ECCN 0A606 are controlled 

by ECCN 0A606.x. Electronic components 

not enumerated on the USML that are 

‘‘specially designed’’ for a missile controlled 

by USML Category IV are controlled by ECCN 

0A604. 

One commenter stated that many 

types of electronic equipment are used 

in military vehicles or other military 

equipment and have no functional or 

technical difference from similar 

equipment used in civilian vehicles or 

equipment. Unless the definition of 

‘‘specially designed’’ allows for minor 

modifications to be made without an 

item being considered ‘‘specially 

designed,’’ the proposed rule would 

have the potential to impose significant 

controls on automotive electronic items 

that are in normal commercial use 

throughout the world. The proposed 

rule should be clarified to address this 

issue by including a note reading, 

‘‘Automotive electronic parts, 

components, accessories and 

attachments, controlled by 0A606.y are 

not subject to 3A611.y simply because 

they contain electronics, rather they are 

controlled by 0A606.y.’’ 

Response: The definition of ‘‘specially 

designed’’ as published in the April 16, 

(initial implementation) rule excludes 

parts that otherwise would be specially 

designed if the only modification is to 

make the part fit a particular 

commodity. Even for electronic parts 

and components that, according to the 

definition, are specially designed for 

military ground vehicles, BIS believes 

that the commenter’s proposed language 

is unnecessary. The first sentence of the 

related control note in ECCN 3A611 

states that electronic items that are not 

on the USML and are within the scope 

of another 600 series ECCN are 

controlled by that 600 series ECCN. BIS 

believes that neither modification to this 

text nor an additional note in paragraph 

.x is necessary to make the point. A note 

should not be necessary for the .y 

paragraphs because the .y paragraphs 

list specific commodities. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the sentence reading: 

‘‘Thus, ECCN 3A611 controls only 

electronic items ‘specially designed’ for 

a military use that are not otherwise 

within the scope of a USML category or 

‘600 series’ ECCN other than ECCN 

3A611’’ be revised by replacing the 

phrase or ‘‘‘600 series’ ECCN other than 

ECCN 3A611’’ with ‘‘another 600 series 

ECCN,’’ because the note is within 

ECCN 3A611, and therefore the 

reference to 3A611 is unnecessary. 

Response: BIS acknowledges the 

reference to ECCN 3A611 is, as a matter 

of syntax, unnecessary. However, 

experience indicates that in the EAR, 

explicit references, even at the risk of 

sounding pedantic, often result in fewer 

misunderstandings. Therefore, BIS is 

not adopting this change. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the text in the related control note to 

3A611 that reads ‘‘. . . that are not 

controlled in any USML category but are 

within the scope of another ‘600 series’ 

ECCN are controlled by that ‘600 series’ 

ECCN’’ appears contrary to the 

reasoning used to include military 

computers, telecommunications devices 

and radars in 3A611, and further clouds 

exactly where electronic components 

should be classified. 

Response: ECCNs 4A611, 5A611 and 

6A611 in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule are merely ECCN 

headers that indicate that specially 

designed military computers, 

telecommunications equipment and 

radars, respectively, if not on the USML 

are controlled under ECCN 3A611. They 

do not contain any ‘‘List of Items 

Controlled’’ or other text indicating that 

they are used to impose license 

requirements. BIS thinks it unlikely that 

readers, on the basis of the related 

control note in ECCN 3A611, will look 

for license requirements in ECCNs 

4A611, 5A611 or 6A611; even if they do 

so, they would be directed back to 

ECCN 3A611. Accordingly, this 

proposed rule does not change the text 

of the first sentence of related control 

note (6). However, readers are 

encouraged to submit further comments 

on this point. As described above, BIS 

is specifically seeking comments about 

whether it would be easier to 

understand and make compliance 

determinations if separate 600 series 

ECCNs sets were created for military 

computers, military 

telecommunications, and military lasers 

and radar in CCL Categories 4, 5, and 6, 

respectively or if all such items are 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45031 

controlled within the scope of a general 

military electronics 600 series ECCN, 

i.e., 3x611. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the second sentence of this related 

control note (number 6 in this proposed 

rule) refers to ECCN 3A611, whereas the 

corresponding explanatory text in the 

preamble refers to ECCN 3A611.x. The 

commenter believes that the regulatory 

text is correct and that the explanatory 

text should be modified accordingly. 

Response: BIS agrees and the 

explanatory text has been modified 

accordingly in this proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended changing ‘‘directly 

related’’ to ‘‘specially designed’’ in the 

first related controls note, which states 

technical data that are directly related to 

electronic items controlled in USML 

Category XI or other USML categories 

are subject to the ITAR. 

Response: BIS is not adopting this 

recommendation. The purpose of the 

related controls note is to call readers’ 

attention to regulatory provisions that 

apply to items related to or similar to 

the items in the ECCN in which the note 

appears. In this instance, the relevant 

regulatory provision is Category XI of 

the USML, which uses the phrase 

‘‘directly related to . . .’’ in describing 

the technical data that it controls. 

Comments or questions regarding the 

meaning of ‘‘directly related’’ should be 

directed to the Department of State’s 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. 

Comment: BIS received several 

comments about the terms used in 

ECCN 3A611.a. Commenters thought 

certain terms were imprecise and 

should be eliminated or replaced with 

more specific listings of items 

controlled. The criticized terms were 

‘‘equipment,’’ ‘‘end items,’’ ‘‘systems,’’ 

‘‘specially designed’’ and ‘‘military 

use.’’ 

Response: This proposed rule does 

not eliminate any of those criticized 

terms. The definitions of the terms ‘‘end 

item,’’ ‘‘equipment,’’ ‘‘specially 

designed’’ and ‘‘system’’ that will apply 

to this proposed rule were published in 

the April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule. BIS believes that, with these 

definitions, the terms will be 

sufficiently precise to be widely 

understood by readers of the EAR. If, 

after reviewing the new definitions, 

readers are uncertain about their 

meanings, BIS encourages them to 

describe the basis for the uncertainty in 

their comments to this or any other 

relevant proposed rule BIS publishes. 

Although the term ‘‘military use’’ was 

not defined in April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule, that term is used 

in the WAML category ML11 to describe 

the types of electronics subject to that 

category. Additionally, the term 

‘‘military application’’ is currently used 

in USML Category XI to describe the 

electronics subject to that category. BIS 

believes that in practical usage, the 

phrase ‘‘military use’’ is synonymous 

with ‘‘military application.’’ This 

proposed rule retains the term ‘‘military 

use’’ to avoid inadvertent decontrol of 

items currently in WAML category 

ML11 or USML Category XI. 

Comment: One commenter focused on 

the portion of the note to ECCN 3A611.a 

that reads: ‘‘3A611.a includes any radar, 

telecommunications or computer 

equipment, end items or systems 

‘specially designed’ for military use that 

are not enumerated in any USML 

category or controlled by a ‘600 series’ 

ECCN.’’ The commenter suggested that 

this note could create confusion as to, 

for example, license requirements for 

items controlled under ECCNs 5A002, 

5A991 or EAR99. This commenter also 

stated that a manufacturer typically will 

develop a standard prototype and offer 

the system in whatever frequency range 

the customer specifies. Such systems 

perform identical functions using 

identical technology regardless of 

whether they are set to operate in a 

traditional military or civilian frequency 

band. Communications systems for 

military customers are often assembled 

with commercial-off-the-shelf 

equipment. ECCN 3A611.a should be 

clarified to enumerate specific 

categories of items with particular 

threshold parameters. This commenter 

suggested that ECCN 3A611.a should be 

modified to exclude explicitly items 

that are composed of commercially 

available components—similar to the 

exclusion in USML Category XI(c). This 

commenter proposed adding a note to 

3A611 that would implement both of its 

proposals: ‘‘Note: This ECCN does not 

control equipment or systems that are 

comprised of parts, components, or 

accessories in normal commercial use, 

which operate in a frequency range 

allocated for military use.’’ 

Response: BIS is making no changes 

to the proposed rule in response to this 

comment. Items specially designed for 

military applications and that are not 

described on the USML warrant the 

degree of control and government 

visibility set forth in the 600 series 

ECCNs. That such items may be 

technologically similar to items not 

specially designed for military 

applications misses the point of 600 

series controls, which is to have U.S. 

government visibility and control over 

their export and reexport to various 

destinations, end users, and end uses of 

concern. It is because such items are 

technologically similar to items used in 

commercial applications that their 

jurisdictional status is being changed 

from an ITAR-controlled item to an 

EAR-controlled item. BIS also rejects 

that suggestion that items specially 

designed for military applications not be 

controlled by a military export control 

if they are composed of commercially 

available parts and components. 

Regulations that fail to control the 

export of items with military 

applications solely because they can be 

built from commercially available 

components would risk strengthening 

adversaries’ military capability. 

Moreover, such a decontrol note would 

likely lead to inconsistent 

interpretations of the EAR as each 

individual exporter applies its own 

interpretation of the term 

‘‘commercially available.’’ Finally, BIS 

believes that this commenter is 

misinterpreting USML Category XI(c), 

which first controls components of 

equipment that is controlled by 

Category XI(a) and (b), and then 

excludes from that control only those 

otherwise ITAR controlled parts, 

components, accessories, and 

attachments that are ‘‘in normal 

commercial use.’’ The State Department 

has confirmed for BIS that Category XI 

does not exclude items specifically 

designed or modified for military 

applications from ITAR control merely 

because they are made from components 

in normal commercial use. Rather, 

USML Category XI(c) excludes from 

control the part, component, accessory, 

or attachment itself that is ‘‘in normal 

commercial use.’’ 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended removing the technical 

parameters for microwave monolithic 

integrated circuits (MMIC) and discrete 

microwave transistors from ECCN 

3A611.c and .d. The commenter 

recommended that ECCN 3A611.c and 

.d should cover microwave monolithic 

integrated circuits and discrete 

microwave transistors specially 

designed for military applications and 

not found in commercial applications 

instead. 

Response: BIS is not adopting this 

recommendation. One of the goals of the 

Export Control Reform Initiative is to 

describe the controlled items using 

specific parameters whenever feasible. 

The text of ECCN 3A611.c and .d in this 

proposed rule reflects the efforts of the 

Departments of Defense, State, and 

Commerce to tailor the control text so 

that it describes the MMIC power 

amplifiers and discrete microwave 

transistors that have significant military 

application. If we have described in the 

proposed text items that are or are likely 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

to be in normal commercial use, then 

please provide a comment regarding 

such uses and the evidence to support 

the comment. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

MMIC power amplifiers in ECCN 

3A001.b.2 have a higher threshold floor 

operating frequency than MMIC power 

amplifier in 3A611.c. The commenter 

recommended that the 3A611.c 

operating frequency threshold floor be 

raised to at least 3.2 GHz. 

Response: BIS is not adopting this 

proposal to raise the threshold floor 

frequency for MMIC power amplifiers. 

Although the current threshold floor 

frequency for MMIC power amplifiers 

listed in ECCN 3A001.b.2 is 3.2 GHz, 

the frequency threshold floor for MMIC 

power amplifiers listed in in ECCN 

3A982 is 2.7 GHz. The U.S. government 

has presented a proposal to the 

Wassenaar Arrangement to make 2.7 

GHz the threshold floor on the 

Wassenaar Arrangement Dual-Use List. 

In this proposed rule, ECCN 3A611.c 

and .d are based on that proposal with 

the addition of power added efficiency, 

higher peak saturated power, increased 

fractional bandwidth, or some 

combination of these factors to limit 

ECCN 3A611.c and .d. to those MMIC 

power amplifiers and discrete 

microwave transistors that have 

significant military applications. BIS 

encourages comments on the parameters 

set forth in this proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

MMICs and discrete microware 

transistors with significant military 

applications operate at frequencies that 

fall within the gaps between the 

operating frequency ranges listed in 

paragraph .c and .d of ECCN 3A611 in 

the November 28 (military electronics) 

rule. 

Response: There are no gaps between 

the operating frequency ranges in ECCN 

3A611.c and .d in this proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter provided 

extensive comments on the MMIC 

amplifiers and discrete microwave 

transistors in ECCN 3A611.c and .d of 

the November 28 (military electronics) 

rule. Those comments are summarized 

below. 

• Wireless broadband and mobile 

carriers operate in the 2.5–2.7 GHz 

segment of the S-band frequency range. 

• Descriptions of operating frequency 

thresholds should be consistent among 

ECCNs, and recommend the pattern 

currently in ECCN 3A001 (frequencies 

exceeding X up to and including Y) as 

being better than the pattern in the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

(frequencies of X up to and including 

Y). The commenter stated that the 

bottom threshold creates a problem 

because standard cell phone carrier 

equipment typically operates in the 

range of 2.5 to 2.7 GHz, with a 

performance roll off slightly above that 

frequency. Using ‘‘exceeding’’ would 

prevent 3A611 from capturing a large 

segment of commercial products that are 

currently EAR99. 

• A total overlap exists between the 

frequency ranges for both MMIC 

amplifier and transistors in proposed 

ECCN 3A611 and existing ECCN 3A982. 

ECCN 3A611 would add a power added 

efficiency metric of 30% and a third 

unit of measure for power thresholds to 

the two already implemented under 

ECCN 3A982. The result would make 

ECCN 3A982 entirely redundant, and 

make these products ineligible for 

License Exception STA, i.e., tightening 

export controls in these products. 

• ECCNs 3A611.c and .d—For tiers 

exceeding 3.2 GHz, proposed ECCN 

3A611 would encompass the same 

frequencies currently covered by ECCN 

3A001 (with carve outs in the 31.8 GHz 

range and for frequencies exceeding 75 

GHz). However, by changing the unit of 

measure for the wattage cut-off points 

from average power to peak power, the 

power thresholds would become more 

restrictive. 

• The proposed power thresholds for 

transistors and MMICs in ECCN 3A611 

bear no direct correlation to militaryspecific applications in accordance with 

the stated intention. By taking the 

existing frequency and power 

thresholds under ECCNs 3A001 and 

3A982 and converting the power unit of 

measure to a tighter metric, this rule 

would have the opposite effect. 

• The addition of a power-added 

efficiency metric to the transistor and 

MMIC controls does not lessen the 

impact of overly restrictive power 

thresholds. Most Gallium Nitride (GaN) 

transistors and MMICs perform at levels 

that exceed the proposed power added 

efficiency thresholds for 3A611. 

Accordingly, it does not help to focus 

the ECCN on high performance parts, 

which instead would capture most of 

the GaN transistors and MMICs 

presently used in telecom, backhaul, 

point-to-point, and satellite 

applications. 

• Telecom infrastructure providers 

use wide band gap products, such as 

with a frequency range of DC–18 GHz 

for backhaul services (telecom providers 

can take the traffic at a local cell phone 

tower back to the switchboard by 

aggregating the calls). 

• The proposed power added 

efficiency thresholds, as a function of 

bandwidth, bear no logical correlation 

to the way that discrete microwave 

transistors and MMIC technologies 

actually work. The lower frequencies 

should correspond with higher poweradded efficiency; as the frequency goes 

higher, the power-added efficiency 

should decrease. 

• The proposed power-added 

efficiency values start at 30% for the 

lowest frequency tier, go up to 40%, 

then go back down to 35% before hitting 

30% again. The commenter believes that 

these thresholds are arbitrary and 

impractical, and proposes alternatives of 

60%, 53%, 45%, 30%, 15%, & 10% for 

HEMTs and 65%, 57%, 50%, 30%, & 

15% for MMICs. 

• Saturated peak output power is the 

most appropriate measure. A peak 

output power metric would most 

accurately address potential concern 

relating to military importance for parts. 

This unit also would eliminate many of 

the close-to-the-threshold concerns by 

providing a more precise measure of 

power. BIS should adopt peak output 

power for all ECCNs that apply to 

discrete microwave transistors and 

MMICs. In particular, the average power 

metric should be eliminated from 

proposed 3A611, 3A001 and 3A982, or 

at least that term should be clearly 

defined in a way that corresponds to 

peak power. 

• The commenter expects a surge in 

demand for discrete microwave 

transistors with a rated peak power of 

120 W in the 3.55–3.65 GHz band 

(currently used by naval radar systems) 

because of an FCC proposal to allow 

small cells/citizens band radio to 

operate in that range (78 FR 1188, 

January 8, 2013). 

• The commenter recommended that 

3A611 exclude discrete microwave 

transistors and MMICs that are 

specifically designed for 

communications in a frequency band 

allocated by the International 

Telecommunications Union, stating that 

similar language is used in ECCN 

3A001. 

• Proposed 3A611 would expand 

controls on several commercial parts 

that are, and should continue to be, 

3A001 or EAR99. Similar parts are 

available without license restrictions 

from UMS (Germany), Mitsubishi 

(Japan), Toshiba (Japan), and Sumitomo 

(Japan). 

• Increasing controls on parts that 

currently are available without 

restriction, and creating ambiguity 

among proposed ECCN 3A611 and 

existing ECCNs 3A001 and 3A982, 

would create an unlevel playing field 

for U.S. manufacturers and jeopardize 

thousands of high paying jobs. 

• This commenter urged removal of 

discrete microwave transistors and 

MMICs from proposed 3A611 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45033 

altogether, because proposed control 

thresholds overlap with existing 

controls on the CCL. Alternatively, if 

they are to remain in 3A611, the 

commenter stated that BIS should tailor 

the provisions narrowly so that they 

apply only to a limited range of 

products that truly are specially 

designed for military use, with no 

potential commercial applications in the 

designated power, frequency, and 

efficiency ranges. There should be a 

logical progression from ECCNs 3A001 

to 3A983 to 3A611. Additionally, the 

units of measure should be harmonized 

for all three ECCNs. 

Response: BIS has substantially 

revamped the criteria for proposed 

ECCNs 3A611.c and .d in this proposed 

rule compared to the November 28 

(military electronics) rule, in an effort to 

tailor these paragraphs to apply to 

MMIC power amplifiers and discrete 

microwave transistors that have 

significant military applications. These 

changes are also intended to avoid 

controlling MMIC power amplifiers and 

discrete microwave transistors that have 

significant civil applications, which will 

remain in ECCNs 3A001 and 3A982. 

Furthermore, The U.S. government has 

presented a proposal to the Wassenaar 

Arrangement to modify the Wassenaar 

Arrangement Dual List parameters for 

MMIC power amplifiers and discrete 

transistors. These proposed 

modifications are being evaluated and 

would align controls among ECCNs 

3A001, 3A982, and 3A611 and prevent 

overlap. 

In this proposed rule, paragraph .c 

would control MMIC power amplifiers 

and paragraph .d would control discrete 

microwave transistors, as was the case 

in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. As recommended by 

this commenter, frequency ranges are 

expressed in the form ‘‘frequencies 

exceeding X up to and including Y’’ for 

all subparagraphs of both paragraphs .c 

and .d. 

The MMIC power amplifiers subject 

to paragraph .c would be described in 

13 subparagraphs. Each subparagraph 

would apply to a specified operating 

frequency range, starting with 

subparagraph .c.1, which would apply 

to MMIC power amplifiers with 

operating frequencies exceeding 2.7 

GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz, and 

increasing with each paragraph to 

paragraph c.13, which applies to MMIC 

power amplifiers with operating 

frequencies exceeding 110 GHz. Each 

subparagraph would be further defined 

by the peak saturated power output 

value that the MMIC power amplifiers 

must exceed to be included within that 

paragraph. Fractional bandwidth and 

power added efficiency would further 

define the MMIC power amplifiers 

controlled by some of the 

subparagraphs. The terms ‘‘average 

power output,’’ ‘‘pulse power output,’’ 

and ‘‘duty cycle,’’ would not be used to 

describe the MMIC power amplifiers in 

paragraph .c. 

The Departments of Defense, State 

and Commerce identified these 

parameters as describing the MMIC 

power amplifiers that are sufficiently 

important to military applications to 

justify control under a 600 series ECCN. 

BIS believes that when the EAR are read 

according to the order of review 

published in the April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule, any apparent 

overlap between the MMIC power 

amplifiers listed in proposed ECCN 

3A611 and those listed in ECCNs 3A001 

or 3A982 would be unambiguously 

resolved, and that only those MMIC 

power amplifiers with significant 

military application would be in ECCN 

3A611.c. BIS welcomes comments on 

whether such is, in fact, the case. 

The discrete microwave transistors 

subject to paragraph .d are described in 

12 subparagraphs. Each subparagraph 

applies to a specified operating 

frequency range starting with 

subparagraph .d.1, which applies to 

discrete microwave transistors with 

operating frequencies exceeding 2.7 

GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz, 

increasing with each paragraph to 

paragraph c.12, which applies to 

discrete microwave transistors with 

operating frequencies exceeding 75 

GHz. Within each of the first 11 

subparagraphs peak saturated power 

output and power added efficiency 

further define the discrete microwave 

transistors to which paragraph .d would 

apply. In the twelfth and final 

subparagraph, only peak saturated 

power output further defines the 

controlled discrete microwave 

transistors. BIS and the Departments 

Defense, State and Commerce identified 

these parameters as describing the 

discrete microwave transistors that are 

sufficiently important to military 

applications to justify control under a 

600 series ECCN. BIS believes that when 

the EAR are read according to the order 

of review published in the April 16 

(initial implementation) rule, any 

apparent overlap between the transistors 

listed in proposed ECCN 3A611 and 

those listed in ECCNs 3A001.b.3 or 

3A982 can be unambiguously resolved 

and that only those discrete microwave 

transistors with significant military 

application would be in ECCN 3A611.d. 

BIS welcomes comments on whether 

such is, in fact, the case. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the description in 3A611.d ‘‘discrete 

radio frequency transistors’’ should be 

the same as ECCN 3A001.b.3 ‘‘discrete 

microwave transistors.’’ 

Response: The preamble to the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

used the phrase ‘‘discrete radio 

frequency transistors,’’ whereas the 

regulatory text used the phrase ‘‘discrete 

microwave transistors.’’ This proposed 

rule uses the latter phrase in the 

preamble. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

discrete microwave transistors in 

3A611.d have a higher operating 

frequency than those in 3A001.b.3. This 

commenter recommended that 

threshold floor operating frequency in 

3A611.d be raised to at least 3.2 GHz. 

Response: This second proposed rule 

would not raise the operating frequency 

threshold floor for discrete microwave 

transistors as compared to the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule. 

Although the current threshold floor 

frequency for power transistors listed in 

ECCN 3A001.b.3 is 3.2 GHz, the 

frequency threshold floor for transistors 

listed in in ECCN 3A982 is 2.7 GHz. The 

U.S. government has presented a 

proposal to the Wassenaar Arrangement 

to make 2.7 GHz the threshold for 

coverage on the Wassenaar Arrangement 

Dual Use List. In this proposed rule, 

ECCN 3A611.d is based on that proposal 

with the added factor of power added 

efficiency, or peak saturated power, or 

some combination thereof, to identify 

discrete microwave transistors that have 

sufficient military significance to 

warrant inclusion in a 600 series ECCN. 

BIS encourages comments on the 

parameters in this proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

proposed ECCN 3A611.e duplicates 

equipment proposed to be classified 

under Category XI(a)(2)(v) and (vi). The 

commenter urged the Departments of 

State and Commerce to specify exactly 

what is proposed for each list either by 

name or discrete technical parameters. 

Response: BIS believes that the 

commenter was referring to proposed 

Category XI(a)(3)(v) and (vi), which 

address radars, as does ECCN 3A611.e. 

(The Department of State’s November 28 

(military electronics) rule did not 

contain a Category XI(a)(2)(v) or (vi)). 

This second proposed rule and the 

proposed rule being published 

simultaneously by the Department of 

State include revisions to proposed 

Category XI(a)(3)(v) and ECCN 3A611.e 

to more precisely describe each than 

was done in BIS’s and State’s November 

28 (military electronics) rules. Under 

the order of review published in the 

April 16 (initial implementation) rule, if 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

an item meets the specific parameters of 

a USML category, it is classified under 

that category, and one need not refer to 

the CCL. BIS believes that the revised 

text in this second proposed rule, 

combined with the order of review, 

removes any ambiguity that may have 

existed in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. 

Comment: Several commenters 

addressed the originally proposed ECCN 

3A611.f, which applied to 

microelectronic devices or printed 

circuit boards produced at a trusted 

foundry, trusted source or trusted 

supplier accredited by the Defense 

Microelectronics Activity (DEMA). One 

commenter stated that this paragraph 

would be a positive move that would 

clearly define the articles covered. Other 

commenters perceived problems with 

the paragraph. Those perceived 

problems were: the paragraph appeared 

to be a delegation by BIS of a 

Department of State classification 

authority to the DEMA; the rule 

provided no guidance as to how to 

validate a supplier’s accreditation; the 

paragraph would control items not 

necessarily made for military use if they 

were trusted devices; and DEMA 

accredits various facilities for a variety 

of functions relating to production and 

testing—the rule needs clarifying 

language on this point. 

Response: Upon review, the 

Department of Defense concluded that 

all of the items in proposed 3A611.f that 

would be appropriate for ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN classification can be fully covered 

elsewhere in 3A611 or other ‘‘600 

series’’ ECCNs. Therefore, this reproposed rule does not mention 

microelectronic devices or printed 

circuit boards produced at a trusted 

foundry, trusted source or trusted 

supplier accredited by DEMA. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the .x concept in the 600 series is 

confusing and would frustrate users 

attempting to classify parts correctly. 

This commenter also stated that the .x 

control did not clearly align 

jurisdictional status of software and 

technology with the items to which they 

relate. This commenter suggested that 

confusion could be reduced by revising 

the first two related control notes in 

ECCN 3A611 to read, ‘‘(1) Electronic 

items that are BY THEMSELVES 

enumerated . . . .’’ and ‘‘(2) Electronic 

items ‘specially designed’ for military 

end us that are not BY THEMSELVES 

controlled within any USML category 

but are within the scope of another ‘600 

series’ ECCN . . . .’’ 

Another commenter stated that 

3A611.x includes parts, components, 

accessories and attachments ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for military end use that are 

neither enumerated in any USML 

category nor another ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN. 

The commenter stated that it is not clear 

that there are any such parts, 

components, accessories and 

attachments. The commenter noted that 

electronics are often found in other enditems, and as such would be controlled 

under the ECCN for the end-item, and 

that the proposed language is not 

required and needlessly complicates the 

CCL. 

Response: This proposed rule would 

continue to use the ‘‘.x’’ concept. The 

April 16 (initial implementation) rule 

specifies an order of review and 

provides a definition of the term 

‘‘specially designed.’’ BIS believes that 

these provisions, read together, would 

make clear that a part, software, or 

technology for a commodity, unless 

specifically enumerated elsewhere on 

the USML or CCL, is treated for 

purposes of EAR license requirements 

as a part of that component rather than 

as a part of an end-item into which the 

component will be installed. The 

specially designed definition provides 

greater clarity as to which parts and 

components are specially designed for 

commodities on the CCL. 

Moreover, listing in ECCN 3A611 

every single specially designed part or 

component of every piece of military 

electronic equipment found on the 

USML or in ECCN 3A611 would make 

the ECCN long and cumbersome. Some 

catch-all license requirements, as 

currently exist on the USML, are needed 

to provide the United States 

Government with visibility into the 

disposition and use of military 

equipment around the world. Finally, 

there are many types of electronic 

components specially designed for 

military items that would not be 

controlled under other 600 series items. 

BIS welcomes further comments on 

whether the definition of ‘‘specially 

designed’’ and the order of review add 

clarity and certainty to the process of 

classifying parts for military electronics. 

Comments on ECCN 3A611.y and .y 

Paragraphs Generally 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

a belief that placing the .y paragraphs in 

separate ECCNs would lead to 

inconsistent classifications. That 

commenter offered several examples 

from various BIS proposed rules, e.g., 

indicator lights for commodities in some 

ECCNs would be in the .y paragraph, 

but not in other ECCNs that apply to 

items that have indicator lights. This 

commenter asserted that the multiple .y 

paragraphs would create an unnecessary 

classification burden. This commenter 

recommended a single list of all .y 

items. (The only CCL reason for control 

that applies to items in the .y 

paragraphs of 600 series ECCNs is 

antiterrorism. Such items are also 

subject to the China military end-use 

requirement.) 

Response: Although this second 

proposed rule continues to list separate 

ECCN-specific .y paragraphs, BIS is 

considering four options to address 

items of limited military significance, 

and would like additional public 

comments on the desirability of each 

alternative. Those options are: (1) 

Creating separate ECCN-specific .y 

paragraphs; (2) creating a single list of 

600 series items subject only to 

antiterrorism and China military enduse license requirements; (3) 

establishing a classification request 

procedure whereby a 600 series item 

could be designated as subject to only 

antiterrorism and China military enduse license requirements, but 

eliminating the .y listings from the 

regulations; or removing all .y lists 

completely. In evaluating the 

desirability of each option, commenters 

should bear in mind that the .y 

designation indicates that the 

Departments of Defense, State and 

Commerce have agreed that a specified 

item is of such limited military 

significance, for almost all destinations, 

that the U.S. government need not 

attempt to control access to items or 

monitor their distribution to obtain 

visibility into supply chains necessary 

to keep military equipment functioning. 

Each option presents different 

advantages and disadvantages. 

Creating separate ECCN specific .y 

paragraphs would allow BIS to tailor the 

controls most precisely, but would also 

produce the most complex and lengthy 

regulations. Control over a commodity 

designed for a military ground vehicle 

might provide less visibility into 

relevant supply chains than would 

control over that same type of 

commodity for a submarine or surface 

vessel of war. A single .y list would 

make the regulation of insignificant 

military items shorter and less complex, 

but likely would contain fewer items 

than separate .y paragraphs. Such a list 

would need to be a lowest common 

denominator list equally relevant to all 

parts for all types of military end items, 

from military trucks to advanced 

submarines. Only those items that do 

not provide useful visibility into the 

relevant supply chain for any 600 series 

ECCN or USML category could be 

included in such a list. A case-by-case 

classification process would likely 

produce the simplest and shortest 

regulations; it could also tailor .y status 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45035 

to very specific items. However, the 

classification process likely would be 

time consuming and, because 

classifications are not published by BIS, 

the results would not be as widely 

distributed as would a list or lists in the 

EAR. Removing all .y lists completely. 

This would have the benefit of 

substantially simplifying and shortening 

the relevant ECCNs and leaving to one 

paragraph—the .x paragraphs—the 

controls over non-enumerated parts, 

components, accessories, and 

attachments. The downside to this 

option would be substantial overcontrol on insignificant items. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern about controlling 

commodities of little or no military 

significance in 3A611.y. One 

commenter thought that such items 

could be controlled in existing ECCNs. 

Another commenter suggested that 

paragraph .y might cause confusion 

with items controlled under other 

categories, and might increase controls 

on items already classified as EAR99. 

One commenter recommended that 

three specific commodities: Electrical 

connectors, electrical connector 

backshells, and waveguides, would be 

more appropriately controlled in a non600 series ECCN because of their 

commercial applications. 

Response: Commodities proposed for 

ECCN 3A611.y are currently controlled 

in the catch-all paragraph XI(c) on the 

USML. BIS has not proposed moving 

any EAR99 items and is proposing to 

move only items controlled by other 

than -018 ECCNs or ECCN 0A918 into 

the 600 series ECCNs. Although 

commodities with the same or a similar 

name, e.g., ‘‘electric fans,’’ may be 

controlled under other ECCNs or may be 

EAR99, the distinguishing factor that 

makes a commodity subject to 3A611.y 

is that it is both ‘‘‘specially designed’ for 

a commodity in ECCN 3A611 and not 

elsewhere specified in the CCL (revised 

to read ‘‘not elsewhere specified in a 

600 series ECCN’’ in this proposed 

rule—see explanation below). Items that 

are specified in a non- 600 series ECCN 

(other than those ending in ‘‘018,’’ all of 

which are expected to be subsumed into 

the 600 series in the course of the 

Export Control Reform Initiative) would 

not be specifically designed for the 

military electronic equipment in 3A611. 

Items that are specially designed need 

some measure of control and for 

consistency that control should be in a 

600 series. Readers should review the 

final definition of ‘‘specially designed’’ 

(cited above) in evaluating paragraph .y 

in this proposed rule. 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended adding some 

commodities to 3A611.y because they 

believed that the commodities have 

commercial application or perform the 

same function in military equipment as 

they do in commercial applications. The 

items proposed for addition were: 

• Crystals and crystal oscillators used a 

components in articles enumerated 

under USML Category XI 

• Cross-field amplifiers, inductive 

output tubes 

• Optical and electrical cables, and 

harnesses 

• Capacitors, crystals oscillators, diodes 

• Electrical sockets, optical connectors 

• Inductors 

• Relays, resistors 

• Optical connector backshells 

• Optical switches 

• Laser and optical terminals 

• Digital signal processors 

• Power supply 

• Passive microwave components 

• Telecom receivers and transmitters 

Response: This proposed rule does 

not add any items to the .y paragraphs 

that did not appear in the November 28 

(military electronics) rule. Based on the 

responses to the question whether to 

modify or even maintain the .y list as 

proposed. BIS will consider whether to 

add more items to a .y structure. The 

public is encouraged to provide 

justification why particular types of 

items, regardless of how they would be 

modified for any military item, are 

nonetheless so insignificant as to not 

warrant more than AT-only controls. 

Comment on ECCN 3B611 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

BIS originally stated that ECCN 3B611 is 

intended to align with WAML category 

ML18. This commenter recommended 

including the WAML category ML18 

note listing the equipment subject to 

this control in ECCN 3B611. 

Response: BIS is not adopting this 

recommendation. ECCN 3B611 applies 

to test, inspection and production 

equipment for military electronics. 

WAML category ML18 applies to such 

equipment for items on the WAML in 

general. Note 2 to WAML category 

ML18 lists examples of production and 

test equipment for a wide range of items 

on the WAML, but none of the examples 

relates specifically to production or 

testing of military electronics. 

Therefore, BIS believes that adding that 

list to ECCN 3B611 would be less 

helpful than suggested. 

Comment on ECCN 3D611 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that ECCN 3D611 be 

revised for consistency with the EAR 

interpretation of ‘‘use,’’ i.e., all six 

elements of the term use must be 

present for the software to be controlled 

as ‘‘use’’ software. Alternatively, the 

commenter recommended limiting 

ECCN 3D611 to software for 

development and production. The 

commenter thought the proposed rule 

language may cause confusion and 

result in a ‘‘roll-back’’ from BIS’s prior 

interpretation. See 71 FR 30840, 30843 

(May 31, 2006). 

Response: BIS is not adopting either 

of these recommendations. The Federal 

Register notice to which the commenter 

referred interpreted the adjective ‘‘use’’ 

as it applied to software and technology 

on the CCL prior to the creation of the 

600 series ECCNs. Nearly all of the 

software and technology in existing and 

proposed 600 series ECCNs comes from 

USML categories. One goal of the US 

government in the Export Control 

Reform Initiative is not to decontrol 

completely and inadvertently items the 

President determines no longer warrant 

control on the USML. BIS believes that 

the formulation in ECCN 3D611 in the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule, 

controlling ‘‘software ‘specially 

designed’ for the ‘production,’ 

‘development,’ operation or 

maintenance . . .’’ achieves this 

objective. 

Comments on ECCN 3E611 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the following phrase in ECCN 3E611.a 

‘‘Technology’’ (other than that described 

in ECCN 3E611.b or 3E611.y) not 

otherwise enumerated in this ECCN 

. . .’’ was redundant. 

Response: BIS agrees. The phrase ‘‘not 

otherwise enumerated in this ECCN’’ 

. . .’’ does not appear in ECCN 3E611.a 

of this proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

paragraph .b of ECCN 3E611 in the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

lists technology for helix traveling wave 

tubes, transmit/receive modules, MMICs 

and discrete radio frequency transistors. 

However, nothing in this paragraph 

would limit its scope to technology for 

commodities and software in ECCNs 

3A611, 3B611 or 3D611. This omission 

gives the impression that 3E611 controls 

technology for commodities and 

software in non-600 series ECCNs, 

which is inconsistent with the wording 

in the preamble. See 77 FR 70947 

(November 28, 2012). The commenter 

suggests removing paragraph .b and the 

reference to paragraph .b that was in the 

parenthetical in paragraph .a as a way 

to eliminate the problem. 

Response: BIS agrees that the 

technology in ECCN 3E611.b should not 

apply beyond helix traveling wave 

tubes, transmit/receive modules, MMICs 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and discrete microwave transistors 

covered by ECCN 3A611, and this 

proposed rule modifies ECCN 3E611.b 

to that effect. This proposed rule does 

not adopt the commenter’s suggestion to 

eliminate paragraph .b. Paragraph .b is 

needed because use of License 

Exception STA is limited to ‘‘build-toprint’’ technology with respect to the 

items listed in paragraph .b. No such 

limitation applies to paragraph .a. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

proposed ECCN 3E611 applied to 

‘‘ ‘technology’ ‘required’ for the 

‘development,’ ‘production,’ operation, 

installation, maintenance, repair, or 

overhaul of . . . .’’ and proposed 

replacing that phrase with the phrase 

‘‘ ‘technology’ ‘required’ for the 

‘development,’ ‘production,’ operation, 

installation, maintenance, repair, and 

overhaul of . . .’’ or with the word 

‘‘use.’’ The commenter noted that its 

recommended change would make 

ECCN 3E611 consistent with other 

technology ECCNs in which the word 

use indicates that the software must 

perform all six functions to be covered. 

Response: BIS is not making this 

change. As described above, BIS is 

revising 3E611 to include all six 

elements. 

Comment: One commenter noted 

BIS’s December 6 (military vehicles) 

rule (See 76 FR 76085 (December 6, 

2011)), which stated that BIS was 

considering recommendations to ‘‘limit 

the controls on form, fit, and function 

data needed to provide military 

insignificant items for military vehicles 

to the antiterrorism reason.’’ This 

commenter recommended that the rule 

make clear that ECCN 3E611 does not 

control information about automotive 

electronics that is outside the scope of 

ECCN 0E606, nor does it control 

information about automotive 

electronics that is controlled by ECCN 

0E606, because that information relates 

to an item controlled by ECCN 0A606.y. 

This commenter also noted that 

manufacturers of commercially 

available automotive electronics may 

employ people from a number of 

countries. If information about minor 

adaptations to widely commercially 

available components must be kept from 

foreign employees, or licenses are 

required to share such information with 

foreign employees, compliance costs 

would be significant, resulting in higher 

costs for the U.S. military. The 

commenter reiterated the definition of 

specially designed that it provided in 

response to the proposed rule entitled 

‘‘‘Specially Designed’ Definition’’ (77 FR 

36409, June 19, 2012) as an alternative 

to its specific proposal that ECCN 3E611 

should not control information 

controlled by ECCN 0E606. 

Response: The Related Controls 

paragraph of ECCN 3A611 in this 

second proposed rule contains the 

following statement ‘‘Electronic 

components not enumerated on the 

USML or another 600 series entry that 

are ‘specially designed’ for a military 

vehicle controlled by USML Category 

VII or ECCN 0A606 are controlled by 

ECCN 0A606.x.’’ Additionally, the final 

definition of ‘‘specially designed,’’ in 

the April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule, excludes certain named parts and 

components, parts and components that 

are identical to parts and components 

used in civil items that are in 

production or that differ from items 

only with respect to fit. It also excludes 

parts and components where 

documentation contemporaneous with 

development indicates the part or 

component was designed for a civil item 

or for no specific item. BIS welcomes 

comments on the impact of that 

definition on the provisions of this 

proposed rule. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

approval of using the word ‘‘required’’ 

in ECCN 3E611, because it serves to 

focus the controls on critical technology 

and is well understood by exporters. 

Response: BIS agrees. The term 

‘‘required’’ is based on the Wassenaar 

Arrangement general technology note 

and is used in technology ECCNs 

throughout the EAR to focus the scope 

of the control. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

whether the reference to ‘‘§ 746.3 (Iraq)’’ 

is needed in note 1 in ECCN 4A003. 

Response: The reference to § 746.3 

(Iraq) is currently in note 1 in ECCN 

4A003. The note indicates that certain 

transactions that do not require a license 

for many destinations do, however, 

require a license pursuant to § 746.3 of 

the EAR for destinations in Iraq. It is 

unrelated to the purpose of the 

proposed revisions to ECCN 4A003 in 

the November 28 (military electronics) 

rule, which was to impose the missile 

technology (MT Column 1) reason for 

control on analog-to-digital converters 

in 4A003.e that meet or exceed the 

parameters of ECCN 3A101.a.4. 

Therefore, BIS is not making any 

changes to the text of proposed ECCN 

4A003 as a result of this comment. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

ECCN 5A001.f and .h duplicate items 

found in proposed USML Category 

XI(a)(4)(iii), and recommended that the 

overlap be resolved before releasing a 

final rule. 

Response: The proposed Department 

of State rule being published 

simultaneously with this proposed rule 

contains a note to USML Category 

XI(a)(4)(iii) stating that ‘‘Paragraph 

XI(a)(4)(iii) does not control mobile 

telecommunications jamming 

equipment determined to be subject to 

the EAR via a commodity jurisdiction 

determination . . . .’’ BIS believes that 

the commodity jurisdiction process will 

effectively resolve the overlap that this 

commenter perceived and is, therefore, 

not making any changes to the text of 

ECCN 5A001.f and .h in this proposed 

rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

changes proposed to USML Category 

XI(b) would complicate the 

classification of equipment currently 

classified in 5A001.i and 5A980, and 

recommended that both rules be revised 

to create jurisdictional ‘‘bright lines’’ 

and ‘‘positive lists’’ of the equipment 

controlled in each list as intended by 

the Export Control Reform Initiative. 

Response: BIS believes that the USML 

Category XI(b) as set forth in the 

proposed Department of State rule being 

published simultaneously with this 

proposed rule, along with the order of 

review in the April 16 (initial 

implementation) final rule published by 

BIS (See 78 FR 22735, April 16, 2013), 

will provide certainty as to which 

agency has jurisdiction over which 

articles. Under the order of review, 

items enumerated on the USML are 

subject to the ITAR, even if they are 

within the parameters of an ECCN. 

Accordingly, BIS is making no changes 

to ECCNs 5A001.i or 5A980 as a result 

of this comment. However, if upon 

review of the Department of State text 

in light of the ‘‘order of review,’’ readers 

believe uncertainty still exists, BIS will 

consider comments to that effect. In 

addition, BIS invites recommendations 

from the public regarding text that 

would provide a clear distinction 

between the items controlled by USML 

Category XI(b) and items controlled by 

ECCN 5A001.i or 5A980. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the ‘‘Reason for Control’’ table in ECCN 

7A006 indicates that MT controls apply 

to commodities that meet or exceed the 

parameters of 7A106. It appears that, by 

definition, all items in 7A006 meet or 

exceed the parameters of 7A106; 

therefore this language should be 

removed. 

Response: BIS believes that this 

language is needed because of the 

longstanding order of review of non-600 

series ECCNs, wherein one reviews 

ECCNs within a category in order. 

ECCNs with a 0 as the third character 

follow the Wassenaar Arrangement Dual 

Use List text. ECCNs with a 1 as the 

third character generally follow the 

MTCR text. When the two regimes have 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45037 

identical text about a particular item, 

the MT reason for control is included in 

an ECCN with the 0 as the third 

character. However, when the MTCR 

text differs from the Wassenaar 

Arrangement Dual Use List text, the 

reference to the parameters of the MTCR 

based ECCN are used to identify items 

in the text of the ECCN with the 0 as the 

third character to be precise. This 

system is used throughout the EAR. 

Therefore, BIS is making no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Comments Concerning License 

Exception STA 

Comment: Some commenters noted 

that exports under STA are likely to be 

in support of foreign defense programs. 

One commenter recommended the 

proposed language for the License 

Exception STA consignee statement set 

forth in the June 21 (transition) rule (See 

77 FR 37541, June 21, 2013) be revised 

to include the following underscored 

language: ‘‘(vi) For ‘600 series’ items, 

confirms that unless otherwise 

authorized by the U.S. government, the 

items are for end use by a government 

of a country listed in § 740.20(c) . . .

.’’ The Commenter cited the example of 

a European-built military transport 

aircraft that contains some US-origin 

parts and components. Some of the 

aircraft would be sold to governments 

eligible to receive items under STA, 

while others would be sold elsewhere. 

Neither the U.S. supplier nor the foreign 

manufacturer would have any way of 

knowing which parts would go into 

aircraft for eligible governments and 

which would not and, thus, under BIS’s 

proposed language, could not use STA. 

This commenter appeared to 

contemplate a situation in which the 

consignee could apply for a license to 

use parts already received under 

License Exception STA in connection 

with an activity or end-user not 

authorized by License Exception STA. 

One commenter proposed allowing 

use of STA based on the consignee’s 

assurance that the appropriate U.S. 

government authorization would be 

obtained before sending the item 

outside the STA eligible countries. 

Another commenter proposed allowing 

some kind of use of STA on a program 

basis. 

Response: BIS intends that the U.S. 

government will have authority to 

license shipments under STA that will 

not be limited to the end users specified 

in § 740.20(c). Under the April 16 

(initial implementation) rule, the U.S. 

government could issue a license 

authorizing the use of License Exception 

STA to ship to a consignee parts that 

would ultimately be incorporated into 

items that will be used by end-users not 

otherwise be eligible to receive 600 

series end items. BIS did not intend to 

require that the license explicitly 

mention License Exception STA. BIS 

intends to publish a correction rule so 

that any license issued to the STA 

consignee authorized the end use, could 

be a basis for authorizing an export, 

reexport or transfer to that consignee 

under License Exception STA of items 

otherwise eligible for transfer under 

License Exception STA. 

The consignee would have to obtain 

the license prior to any shipment of 

parts to it under License Exception STA 

because the consignee would have to 

furnish a copy of the license to the 

exporter before the exporter could ship 

under License Exception STA. If after 

the consignee received parts under 

License Exception STA, the consignee 

learned that those already received parts 

are needed for an item being produced 

for an end user other than one 

authorized under STA, that consignee 

could still apply to the U.S. government 

for a license to use those parts in such 

production, notwithstanding the 

language about end use in the 

consignee’s prior statement. BIS does 

not intend to preclude STA consignees 

from requesting a new or expanded 

authorization based on facts of which 

the consignee was unaware at the time 

it made the original statement. BIS does 

not believe that a change in the 

regulatory text is needed to make this 

point. BIS is interested in comments on 

whether the approach described in the 

initial implementation rule is feasible 

and addresses the point of the comment. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general approval of License Exception 

STA and recommended more outreach 

to increase understanding and use of it. 

Response: BIS is developing outreach 

programs to address this need. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, provided security 

needs are adequately addressed, the 

number of eligible STA destinations 

should be increased. 

Response: Although the number of 

License Exception STA eligible 

destinations may grow or shrink over 

time, expanding the geographic scope of 

License Exception STA is not a part of 

this rulemaking exercise, which is 

concerned with adding to the CCL items 

that the President determines no longer 

warrant control under the USML. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that BIS eliminate the 

STA consignee statement entirely (or at 

least to NATO countries) to significantly 

ease the administrative burden on 

industry when using this exception. The 

commenter asserted that this statement 

is similar to the DSP–83 ‘‘Nontransfer 

and Use Certificate’’ form, which is 

required currently for Significant 

Military Equipment (SME) but not for 

the non-SME articles in Category XI(c). 

Most of the items would be moved to 

the CCL 600 series under the proposed 

rule are not SME. 

Response: BIS is not adopting this 

recommendation. Use of the STA 

consignee statement can readily be 

distinguished from use of the DSP–83. 

The consignee must send the STA 

consignee statement to the exporter as 

one of the requirements that the parties 

to the transaction must meet in order to 

be able to execute the transaction 

without prior US government approval. 

The DSP–83 is a document that must be 

submitted to the US government in 

support of an application for a 

government authorization to proceed 

with the transaction. The STA 

consignee statement is required for all 

transactions under License Exception 

STA. Although statements for 600 series 

items have more elements than 

statements for non-600 series items, 

those additional elements reflect the 

limitations on use of License Exception 

STA that are appropriate given the 

military nature of the 600 series items. 

This STA consignee statement is 

necessary to provide reasonable 

assurance that the consignee is aware of 

the requirements and limitations of 

License Exception STA, and has agreed 

to abide by them before the parties are 

permitted to proceed with a license-free 

transaction. The alternative is to apply 

for a license, which parties are free to 

do. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

making ECCN 3A611.c and d. high 

electron mobility transistors (HEMT)s 

and microwave monolithic integrated 

circuits (MMIC)s ineligible for License 

Exception STA would, when combined 

with the NS1 and RS1, impose a license 

requirement for all destinations other 

than Canada, making these commodities 

controlled as if they were subject to the 

ITAR. The commenter noted that 

commodities in ECCN 3A001 and 

HEMTs in ECCN 3A982 are both eligible 

for STA. 

Response: The November 28 (military 

electronics) rule and this second 

proposed rule would make all 

commodities controlled in ECCN 3A611 

ineligible for paragraph (c)(2) of License 

Exception STA (which authorizes 

shipments to eight countries), but would 

not preclude use of paragraph (c)(1) of 

STA (which authorizes shipments to 36 

countries). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

two of BIS’s prior proposed Export 

Control Reform Initiative rules (the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

November 7 (aircraft) and the December 

6 (gas turbine engine) rules) would 

preclude use of License Exception STA 

for electrical equipment, parts, and 

components specially designed for 

electro-magnetic interference (EMI) that 

conform to the requirements of MIL– 

STD–461. The commenter stated that 

this preclusion raises two difficulties. 

First, the distinction between electric 

and electronic parts and components is 

often unclear and that they may be 

ambiguously classified. The commenter 

also stated that this difficulty made it 

appropriate to raise the issue in a 

comment on the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. Second, the 

commenter stated that standard MIL– 

STD–461 is a poor criterion for 

determining when items designed for 

EMI compatibility should be restricted 

from STA eligibility or subject to any 

reasons for control other than antiterrorism because: (1) There are several 

historical versions of MIL–STD–461 that 

remain in effect for existing programs; 

(2) A number of civil requirements offer 

performance equal to or superior to 

MIL–STD–461; and (3) Military 

programs outside the United States may 

use multinational or foreign standards. 

The commenter states that a better 

criterion would be a degree of EMI 

protection exceeding the equivalent 

civil requirements for the item. 

Response: BIS believes that the 

commenter misunderstood the scope of 

the rules. The rules cited by the 

commenter proposed restricting from 

STA software and technology for the 

development or production of aircraft 

electrical equipment, parts and 

components electrical equipment, parts, 

and components specially designed for 

electro-magnetic interference (EMI) that 

conform to the requirements of MIL– 

STD–461. They did not propose 

restricting from STA the equipment, 

parts and components themselves. The 

April 16 (initial implementation) rule 

published these restrictions in ECCNs 

9D610 and 9E610 (See 78 FR 22733– 

22734, April 16, 2013). 

Comment: One commenter provided 

two sets of comments. The first set 

provided detailed proposals for 

rewording USML Category XI and a 

number of ECCNs as they appeared in 

the November 28 (military electronics) 

rules of the Departments of State and 

Commerce. The second set proposed 

detailed rewording of a number of 

ECCNs and the creation of some new 

ECCNs in Category 9 of the CCL. 

First Set of Comments 

The commenter divided the proposals 

in his first set of comments into three 

topics, which he characterized as edits 

to remove: Overlaps in BIS’s and State’s 

November 28 (military electronics) rules 

that would move items from the CCL to 

the USML; ambiguities in the November 

28 [Commerce] rule; and other CCL 

ambiguities that the commenter 

perceived to be relevant. 

Instances in Which the Commenter 

Expressed a Belief That the Rule Would 

Transfer Items From the CCL to the 

USML 

The commenter identified 18 

instances in which he asserted that 

overlapping text would have the effect 

of transferring items from the CCL to the 

USML. BIS is not adopting any of the 

specific changes proposed by the 

commenter under this topic. In some 

instances, the commenter proposed only 

changes to the USML and not to the 

CCL. In other instances, the comment 

appeared to reflect an incomplete 

reading of either the USML or CCL 

entries such that detailed technical 

specifications were interpreted without 

consideration of introductory text that 

limited the overall range of the items to 

which the technical specifications 

applied. BIS does not believe that the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

or this proposed rule would transfer any 

items from the CCL to the USML. BIS 

invites comments that describe specific 

examples of actual items that are today 

subject to the EAR that would become 

subject to the ITAR were this and the 

corresponding State proposed rule to 

become final. 

Instances in Which the Commenter 

Expressed a Belief That the Rule 

November 28 (Military Electronics) Rule 

Was Ambiguous 

The commenter cited about 50 

situations in which he thought the rule 

was ambiguous and needed changes for 

precision. In most instances, BIS either 

does not agree that the proposed text 

cited by the commenter was ambiguous 

or believes that the comment addressed 

text that is outside the scope of the 

proposal. However, in four instances, 

this proposed rule adopts changes 

recommended by this commenter. 

The four instances in which this 

second proposed rule adopts changes 

from the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule in response to the 

comments proposed by this commenter 

are: 

• Adding the phrase ‘‘or software’’ to 

paragraph .y of ECCN 3E611. Paragraph 

.y of ECCN 3E611 applies to technology 

for 3A611.y and 3D611.y. ECCN 3A611 

applies to commodities and ECCN 

3D611 applies to software. Use of the 

term ‘‘commodities’’ to apply to 

technology for both ECCNs in the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

was in error. 

• Adding the word ‘‘acoustic’’ to the 

list of items in the note to ECCN 

3A611.a and note 1 to 3A611.x. These 

notes describe in general terms the 

items that if not enumerated on the 

USML or another 600 series ECCN, are 

controlled by ECCN 3A611. Adding the 

word ‘‘acoustic’’ makes the listing more 

comprehensive. 

• Adding the phrase ‘‘Acoustic 

systems and equipment’’ to the header 

of ECCN 6A611. In the November 28 

(military electronics) rule, ECCN 6A611 

referred readers to ECCN 3A611 for 

radar and related items specially 

designed for military use. The reference 

was included because CCL Category 6 

controls a number of other radars. ECCN 

3A611 would control acoustic systems 

and equipment specially designed for 

military use that are not on the USML 

or any other 600 series ECCN and other 

acoustic systems and equipment also in 

Category 6 of the CCL. Including the 

additional phrase will make ECCN 

6A611 more descriptive and 

comprehensive. 

• Adding a new ECCN 7A611 that 

only refers readers to ECCN 3A611 for 

navigation and avionics, parts, 

components, accessories and 

attachments ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

military use that are not enumerated in 

any USML category or other ‘‘600 

series’’ ECCN. ECCN 3A611 applies to 

military electronic avionic and 

navigation devices not enumerated on 

the USML or in another 600 series 

ECCN. Because CCL Category 7 applies 

to such devices not specially designed 

for military use, the cross-reference will 

be helpful to alerting readers to check 

ECCN 3A611. 

This proposed rule did not adopt the 

following proposals of this commenter. 

Comment: Indicate in the foregoing 

cross-reference ECCNs that ECCN 3A611 

does not control radar, acoustic systems 

and equipment, computers, 

telecommunication equipment or 

navigation and avionics and related 

items if controlled by any other ECCN, 

including non-600 series ECCNs. Apply 

ECCN 3A611 to commodities that are 

specially designed for military use. 

Response: Commodities in non-600 

series ECCNs (other than ECCNs ending 

in ‘‘018’’ and ECCN 0A918) are not 

specially designed for military use, so 

there should be no overlap between 

ECCN 3A611 and non-600 series ECCNs. 

Moreover, the April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule created an order of 

review that gives 600 series ECCNs 

preferences over non-600 series ECCNs. 

Adopting the commenter’s proposal 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45039 

would appear to undermine that order 

of review. 

Comment: Replace the term ‘‘specially 

designed’’ with ‘‘required’’ in several 

ECCNs covering software. The term 

‘‘required’’ as a well-defined meaning in 

the EAR that is based on a Wassenaar 

Arrangement definition. That term is 

defined in relation to technology rather 

than software. 

Response: BIS believes that the term 

‘‘specially designed’’ as defined on the 

April 16 (initial implementation) rule 

provides reasonable, practical and 

objective criteria for classifying 

products, the term ‘‘required’’ as 

currently defined would exclude many 

parts and components that are in fact 

designed for military items and that 

have no other practical use. 

Comment: Do not use the term 

‘‘specially designed’’ in instances where 

the Missile Technology Control Regime 

uses the word ‘‘designed.’’ Generally, 

the commenter recommended that no 

word replace the phrase ‘‘specially 

designed,’’ on the ground that the 

specifications in the ECCN are 

sufficiently precise that no qualifier is 

needed. 

Response: BIS believes that the term 

specially designed as defined in the 

April 16 (initial implementation) rule is 

adequate to meet its MTCR obligations. 

Comment: Replace the term 

‘‘operation or maintenance’’ with the 

term ‘‘use’’ in several software ECCNs. 

Response: BIS has adopted the phrase 

‘‘ ‘development,’ ‘production,’ operation 

or maintenance’’ as a standard practice 

in 600 series ECCNs. The commenter 

suggested no persuasive reason to 

change this policy. 

Comment: Remove the term ‘‘directly 

related’’ and, in some instances, replace 

it with the word ‘‘required’’ in the 

several ‘‘Related controls’’ notes of 

software and technology ECCNs. 

Response: The related control notes at 

issue refer readers to the USML for 

controls on ‘‘technical data’’ (which, on 

the USML, includes both software and 

technology) that is similar to the 

software or technology covered by that 

ECCN. The USML uses the term ‘‘related 

to’’ in describing the objects to which 

those technical data apply. In these 

cross-references to the USML, using the 

USML terminology is appropriate. 

Comment: Do not use the phrase 

‘‘technical data,’’ except in its meaning 

as defined in part 772 of the EAR. 

Response: The specific uses of the 

term ‘‘technical data’’ to which this 

commenter objected are references to 

the USML. In that context, the term is 

used in a way that is consistent with its 

meaning in the USML. The term is not 

surrounded by quotation marks, which 

would signify that it is defined in part 

772. 

Comment: Replace the word ‘‘and’’ 

with the word ‘‘or’’ in the definition of 

‘‘use’’ in the EAR. 

Response: This proposal would affect 

every software ECCN in the entire CCL 

and is outside the scope of the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule. 

Comment: The commenter 

recommended a number of changes to 

ECCNs or ECCN paragraphs for which 

modifications are not needed to 

accomplish the purpose of the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

and this proposed rule, which is to 

control on the CCL items that the 

President determines no longer warrant 

control on the USML. 

Response: Without commenting on 

the merit of each of those proposed 

changes, BIS is not including them in 

this proposed rule because they are 

outside the scope of what BIS proposed 

in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. Including them in this 

proposed rule would distract readers 

and potential commenters, possibly 

depriving BIS of the benefit of informed 

analysis and comments on the rule’s 

efficacy in achieving its purpose as 

stated above. 

In addition to the changes discussed 

above, this commenter recommended 

several changes to the proposed ECCNs 

in CCL Category 9 concerning cryogenic 

and superconductive equipment and 

related items. 

Comment: 

• Add the phrase ‘‘not controlled by 

1C005, 3A001.d, 3A001.e.3, 3A201.b, 

6A002.d.1, 6A006.a.1 or 8A002.o.2.c’’ to 

the header of ECCN 9A620 

• Add a related control note referring 

to ECCNs 1C005, 3A001.d, 3A001.e.3, 

3A201.b, 6A002.d.1, 6A006.a.1 or 

8A002.o.2.c. 

• Remove the phrase ‘‘‘specially 

designed’ to be installed’’ and the 

phrase ‘‘and capable of’’ from 

paragraphs .a and .b of 9A620 

• Remove the words ‘‘Parts’’ and 

‘‘attachments’’ from 9A620.x 

• Change the word ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘or’’ 

everywhere it appears in the following 

phrase in ECCN 9B620: ‘‘Test, 

inspection and production end items 

and equipment . . .’’ 

• In ECCN 9A620.x, replace the 

phrase ‘‘specially designed for a 

commodity controlled by ECCN 9A620’’ 

with ‘‘for a commodity controlled by 

ECCN 9A620.a or 9A620.b having any of 

the characteristics described in the texts 

of those sub-items.’’ 

• In ECCN 9B620, replace the phrase: 

‘‘ ‘Specially designed’ for items 

controlled in ECCN 9A620’’ with the 

phrase ‘‘having any of the 

characteristics described in 9A620.a or 

9A620.b.’’ 

Response: The ECCNs that this 

commenter proposes adding to the 

header of ECCN 9A620 and to a related 

control note in that ECCN apply, inter 

alia, to a number of commodities that 

have cryogenic or superconducting 

properties. None of them has the 

qualifier ‘‘ ‘specially designed’ to be 

installed in a vehicle for military . . . 

applications,’’ which appears in 

paragraphs .a and .b of proposed ECCN 

9A620. In fact, only one ECCN, 

8A002.o.2.c, relates to a vehicle of any 

kind. In addition, the order of review in 

the April 16 (initial implementation) 

rule makes clear that items with 

characteristics that meet the parameters 

of a 600 series ECCN are controlled by 

that 600 series ECCN and not by a non600 series ECCN. 

The phrases ‘‘ ‘specially designed’ to 

be installed’’ and the phrase ‘‘and 

capable of’’ are drawn from WAML 

category ML20, on which ECCN 9A620 

is based. The commenter offered no 

specific reason to depart from the 

regime text. WAML category ML20 also 

uses the phrase ‘‘components and 

attachments.’’ The Wassenaar 

Arrangement does not define either 

‘‘components’’ or ‘‘attachments.’’ 

However, BIS believes that as used in 

the Wassenaar Arrangement’s control 

lists, the term ‘‘components’’ would 

encompass ‘‘parts’’ and ‘‘components’’ 

as defined in the April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule and the term 

‘‘attachments’’ would encompass 

‘‘accessories’’ and ‘‘attachments’’ as 

defined in the April 16 (initial 

implementation) rule. The phrase ‘‘Test, 

inspection and production equipment’’ 

is also used widely in describing 

product group B in all nine categories of 

the EAR. BIS believes that it is widely 

understood to encompass each of those 

three types of equipment, and that 

changing the formula for one ECCN 

would be more likely to increase than to 

decrease any misunderstandings that 

may exist. The suggested alternative 

phrases for ECCNs 9A620.x and 9B620 

(replacing ‘‘specially designed’’ with 

‘‘having any of the characteristics of’’) 

would distort the meaning of these 

ECCNs in ways that would in some 

instances extend the control beyond 

what BIS intends, and in other instances 

fail to control things that BIS intends to 

control. BIS believes that with the 

publication of the definition of the term 

‘‘specially designed’’ in the April 16 

(initial implementation) rule, these 

ECCNs will be best understood and 

appropriately tailored by retaining that 

term. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Comments That Commenter 

Characterized as ‘‘Other’’ Military 

Electronics Ambiguities 

Comment: This commenter cited ten 

instances of alleged military electronics 

ambiguities, i.e., instances in which the 

applicable ECCN for an item was 

uncertain. 

Response: BIS is not adopting any of 

this commenter’s recommended changes 

in this category. Two of the comments 

in essence repeated the view that ECCNs 

3A001.d and .e.3 should be cross 

referenced in ECCN 9A620 because they 

apply to superconducting commodities. 

The remaining eight comments do not 

address any text on the CCL that is 

related to or affected by the decision to 

control on the CCL items that the 

President determines no longer warrant 

control on the USML and are thus 

outside the scope of the November 28 

(military electronics) rule. 

Second Set of Comments Submitted by 

This Commenter 

Comment: The commenter proposed 

changes to 57 of the 63 ECCNs currently 

in CCL Category 9, and the creation of 

five new ECCNs for that category. The 

commenter did not propose any changes 

to the four new ECCNs proposed for that 

category by the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. 

Response: All these proposed changes 

are outside the scope of the November 

28 (military electronics) rule, and are 

extraneous to the purpose of that or this 

second proposed rule. Therefore, BIS is 

not making any changes to this 

proposed rule in response to these 

comments. 

Detailed Description of Changes 

Proposed by This Rule 

Revisions to ECCN 3A101 

Currently, ECCN 3A101 refers readers 

to the ITAR for analog-to-digital 

converters described in paragraph .a. 

These converters would move to the 

CCL and continue to be controlled for 

MT reasons because they are identified 

on the MTCR Annex. Placing such items 

in this ECCN, rather than the new ECCN 

3A611, will make it easier to identify, 

classify, and control such items. 

Consequently, this proposed rule adds 

analog-to-digital converters usable in 

‘‘missiles’’ and having any of the 

characteristics described in proposed 

3A101.a.1 or a.2. This proposed rule 

modifies the text of ECCN 3A101.a.1 

compared to what was published in the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

to more closely follow the format and 

text of Category II, Item 14, 14.A.1 of the 

MTCR Annex. This is not a substantive 

change from what was previously 

proposed. 

New 3Y611 Series of ECCNs 

Proposed new ECCNs 3A611, 3B611, 

3D611, and 3E611 would control 

military electronics and related test, 

inspection, and production equipment 

and software and technology currently 

controlled by USML Category XI that 

the President determines no longer 

warrant control on the USML. To the 

extent that they are not enumerated on 

the proposed revisions to Category XI, 

these proposed new ECCNs would also 

control computers, telecommunications 

equipment, radar ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for military use, parts, components, 

accessories, and attachments ‘‘specially 

designed’’ therefor, and related software 

and technology. This structure aligns 

with the current USML Category XI and 

ML11, which include within the scope 

of ‘‘electronics’’ such items as 

computers, telecommunications 

equipment, and radar. BIS believes that 

it will be easier to include such items 

within the scope of the proposed new 

600 series that corresponds to USML 

Category XI, rather than creating new 

600 series ECCNs in CCL Categories 4 

(computers), 5 (telecommunications), 6 

(radar) and 7(avionics). BIS, however, 

proposes including cross references in 

CCL Categories 4, 5, 6 and 7 to alert 

readers that ECCN 3A611 may control 

such items. As described above, BIS 

nonetheless solicits comments regarding 

whether it would be easier to 

understand and comply with controls 

on military electronics that move to the 

CCL from the USML if they were 

divided among 600 series entries in CCL 

Categories 4, 5, 6, and 7. 

The proposed ECCN 3X611 series, 

except for ECCN 3X611.y, would be 

controlled for national security (NS 

Column 1 or NS1), regional stability (RS 

Column 1 or RS1), antiterrorism (AT 

Column 1 or AT1), and United Nations 

embargo (UN) reasons. ECCNs 3X611.y 

would only be controlled for AT1 

reasons (ECCN 3B611 would not have a 

.y paragraph). Each ECCN in this 3X611 

series is described more specifically 

below. 

New ECCN 3A611 

Proposed ECCN 3A611 paragraph .a 

would control electronic ‘‘equipment,’’ 

‘‘end items,’’ and ‘‘systems’’ ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for military use that are not 

enumerated in either a USML category 

or another ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN. 

Paragraph .b would be reserved. The 

corresponding USML Category is XI(b), 

which, in the Department of State 

proposed rule being published 

concurrently with this rule, would 

continue to be a catch-all control and 

would contain the following clarified 

version of the current Category XI(b): 

‘‘Electronic systems or equipment 

specially designed for intelligence 

purposes that collects, surveys, 

monitors, or exploits the 

electromagnetic spectrum (regardless of 

transmission medium), or for 

counteracting such activities.’’ In the 

Department of State’s proposed rule 

being published simultaneously with 

this proposed rule, Category XI(b) 

references certain types of equipment 

and systems that are per se within the 

scope of the revised Category XI(b). BIS 

encourages the public to comment on 

whether this approach creates any 

confusion regarding the jurisdictional 

status of any items that are commonly 

used in normal commercial, nonintelligence, or non-security use, 

including those controlled under ECCN 

5A980 (‘‘Devices primarily useful for 

the surreptitious interception of wire, 

oral, or electronic communications.’’) 

Paragraphs .c and .d would control 

MMIC power amplifiers and discrete 

microwave transistors, respectively. 

These two paragraphs have been 

extensively revised from what was 

proposed in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule in an effort to tailor 

them to control MMIC power amplifiers 

and discrete microwave transistors that 

have military end use and little or no 

civilian application. The new 

parameters are discussed under the 

heading ‘‘Public Comments on the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule’’ 

below. Additionally, a note has been 

added stating that paragraph .d includes 

bare dice, dice mounted on carriers or 

dice mounted in packages. The note also 

recognizes discrete transistors may also 

be referred to as power amplifiers but 

that doing so does not change the 

classification, whether under ECCN 

3A001.b.3 or 3A611.d. 

Paragraph .e would control high 

frequency (HF) surface wave radar 

capable of ‘‘tracking’’ surface targets on 

oceans. 

In this proposed rule, microelectronic 

devices and printed circuit boards that 

are certified to be a ‘trusted device’ from 

a DMEA accredited supplier that were 

listed in paragraph .f in the November 

28 (military electronics) rule are not 

listed because, upon review, all such 

devices and printed circuit boards that 

needed to be controlled were covered by 

other paragraphs of 3A611. 

Paragraphs .f, .g, and .h in this 

proposed rule apply respectively to: (1) 

Application specific integrated circuits 

(ASICs) and programmable logic devices 

(PLD) programmed for 600 series items; 

(2) printed circuit boards and populated 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45041 

circuit card assemblies whose layout is 

‘‘specially designed’’ for 600 series 

items; and (3) multichip modules for 

which the pattern or layout is ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for 600 series items. These 

commodities were not explicitly 

included in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule, but would have been 

covered by the ‘‘catch all’’ paragraph 

3A611.x in that rule. However, these 

same types of devices, if for defense 

articles on the USML, were explicitly 

identified in Category XI.c.1, .2 and .3 

of the Department of State rule of 

November 28. A comment on that 

Department of State proposal stated that 

greater clarity was needed to prevent 

classifying ASICs, PLDs, and printed 

circuit boards for 600 series items as 

defense articles subject to the ITAR. 

Identifying ASICs, PLDs and printed 

circuit boards for 600 series items 

explicitly in ECCN 3A611 contributes to 

this clarity. These additions are not 

substantive changes from what was 

proposed in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. 

Each of the foregoing ECCN 3A611 

paragraphs describes electronic items 

that BIS understands to be inherently 

military or otherwise exclusively 

designed and manufactured for military 

use. BIS encourages the public to test 

this understanding and identify items, if 

any, that fall within the scope of these 

new ECCNs that are in normal 

commercial use. If so, the comments 

should provide details on such 

commercial applications. In particular, 

BIS asks the public to comment on 

whether the controls in proposed new 

paragraphs 3A611.c (MMIC power 

amplifiers) and 3A611.d (discrete 

microwave transistors) are sufficiently 

limited to those not now or likely to be 

in normal commercial use by US or 

foreign telecommunications or other 

non-military applications. The basis for 

this request is that the current USML 

Category XI(c) does not now control any 

electronic parts, components, 

accessories, attachments, or associated 

equipment ‘‘in normal commercial use’’ 

even if they were ‘‘specifically designed 

or modified for use with the equipment’’ 

controlled in USML categories XI(a) or 

XI(b), which are, in essence, electronic 

equipment ‘‘specifically designed, 

modified, or configured for military 

application.’’ One of the goals of the 

reform effort is to ensure that items that 

are currently EAR controlled are not, 

through the creation of the more 

positive lists, unintentionally made 

ITAR or ‘‘600 series’’ controlled. This 

objective, however, does not preclude 

the possibility of the Administration 

intentionally making ITAR or ‘‘600 

series’’ controlled items that are today 

subject to the other parts of the EAR. 

Paragraphs .i through .w would be 

reserved. 

Paragraph .x would control ‘‘parts,’’ 

‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories’’ and 

‘‘attachments’’ that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a commodity controlled 

by ECCN 3A611 or for an article 

controlled by USML Category XI, and 

not enumerated in a USML category. 

A related control note is proposed for 

ECCN 3A611 clarifying that electronic 

parts, components, accessories, and 

attachments that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for military use that are not 

enumerated in any USML Category, but 

are within the scope of a ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN, are controlled by that ‘‘600 

series’’ ECCN. For example, electronic 

components not enumerated on the 

USML that are ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

a military aircraft controlled by USML 

Category VIII or ECCN 9A610 would be 

controlled by ECCN 9A610.x. Similarly, 

electronic components not enumerated 

on the USML that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a military vehicle 

controlled by USML Category VII or 

ECCN 0A606 would be controlled by 

ECCN 0A606.x. The purpose of this note 

and the limitations in ECCN 3A611.x is 

to prevent any overlap of controls over 

electronics specially designed for 

particular types of items described in 

other 600 series ECCNs (which would 

not be controlled by 3A611.x), on one 

hand, and other electronic parts, 

components, accessories, and 

attachments specially designed for 

military electronics that are not 

enumerated on the USML (which would 

be controlled by ECCN 3A611.x), on the 

other. 

Additional proposed related control 

notes address: Electronic items that are 

enumerated in USML categories, 

application specific integrated circuits, 

unprogrammed programmable logic 

devices, printed circuit boards and 

populated circuit cards, and multichip 

modules. Finally, a related control note 

informs readers that certain radiation 

hardened microelectronic circuits 

would be controlled by proposed ECCN 

9A515.d. See 78 FR 31431, 31442 (May 

24, 2013) for the proposed text of ECCN 

9A515. 

A note proposed for ECCN 3A611.x 

specifies that ECCN 3A611.x controls 

parts and components ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for underwater sensors or 

projectors controlled by proposed 

USML Category XI(c)(12) containing 

single-crystal lead magnesium niobate 

lead titanate (PMN–PT) based 

piezoelectrics. 

ECCN 3A611 also would contain a 

paragraph .y for items of little or no 

military significance that would be 

controlled only for AT1 reasons. 

New ECCN 3B611 

Proposed ECCN 3B611 would impose, 

under paragraph .a, controls on test, 

inspection, and production end items 

and equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

the ‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ 

repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of items 

controlled in ECCN 3A611 or USML 

Category XI that are not enumerated in 

USML XI or controlled by a ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN and, under paragraph .x, for 

‘‘parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories’’ 

and ‘‘attachments’’ that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for such test, inspection and 

production end items and equipment 

that are not enumerated on the USML or 

controlled by another ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN. Paragraphs .b through .w would 

be reserved. 

New ECCN 3D611 

Proposed ECCN 3D611 paragraph .a 

would impose controls on software 

‘‘specially designed’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ 

operation, or maintenance of 

commodities controlled by 3A611 or 

3B611 other than software for 3A611.y. 

Paragraph .b would impose controls on 

software specially designed for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ 

operation or maintenance of technology 

in ECCN 3E611.b; i.e., software (other 

than build-to-print software) for 

technology for helix traveling wave 

tubes (TWTs), transmit/receive or 

transmit modules, MMICs; and discrete 

microwave circuits controlled under 

ECCN 3A611 would not be eligible for 

License Exception STA. Paragraphs .c 

through .x would be reserved. Paragraph 

.y would control specific ‘‘software’’ 

‘‘specially designed’’ for the 

‘‘production,’’ ‘‘development,’’ 

operation or maintenance of 

commodities enumerated in ECCNs 

3A611.y. 

New ECCN 3E611 

Proposed ECCN 3E611 would impose 

controls on ‘‘technology’’ ‘‘required’’ for 

the ‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ 

operation, installation, maintenance, 

repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of 

commodities or software controlled by 

ECCN 3A611, 3B611 or 3D611 (except 

technology for 3A611.y and 3D611.y, 

which would be controlled for AT1 

reasons only). Technology (other than 

‘‘build-to-print’’ technology for helix 

traveling wave tubes (TWTs), transmit/ 

receive or transmit modules, MMICs; 

and discrete microwave circuits 

controlled under ECCN 3A611 would 

not be eligible for License Exception 

STA. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Revisions to ECCN 4A003 

As noted above, the analog-to-digital 

converters described in the proposed 

revision to 3A101.a would become 

subject to the EAR. Adding the text in 

3A101.a.2.b for electrical input type 

analog-to-digital converter printed 

circuit boards or modules requires that 

this proposed rule amend ECCN 4A003 

to add an MT control for items classified 

under ECCN 4A003.e when meeting or 

exceeding the parameters described in 

ECCN 3A101.a.2.b. This amendment is 

necessary because the MT items in new 

paragraph 3A101.a.2.b are a subset of 

the items in paragraph 4A003.e. 

Revisions to ECCN 5A001 

This proposed rule revises the Related 

Controls paragraph in ECCN 5A001 to 

provide more detailed references to 

telecommunications equipment subject 

to the ITAR under USML Categories XI 

and XV, while maintaining references to 

ECCNs 5A101, 5A980, and 5A991. 

New Cross Reference ECCNs 

Four new cross reference ECCNs 

would be created to alert readers that 

computers, telecommunications 

equipment, radar and avionics—and 

parts, components, accessories and 

attachments ‘‘specially designed’’ 

therefor—are controlled by ECCN 3A611 

if they are specially designed for 

military use. These cross references are 

intended to reduce the likelihood of 

confusion that might otherwise arise 

because computers, telecommunications 

equipment, radar and avionics generally 

are in CCL Categories 4, 5 (Part 1), 6 and 

7, respectively. The new cross reference 

ECCNs and the Categories in which they 

would appear are: 4A611, Category 4; 

5A611, Category 5, Part 1; 6A611, 

Category 6; 7A611, Category 7. The 

avionics cross reference ECCN was not 

in the November 28 (military 

electronics) rule. As discussed below, 

BIS received public comments 

expressing a preference for controlling 

600 series computers, 

telecommunications and radar in the 

CCL Categories under which other 

computers, telecommunications and 

radar are controlled rather than in a 

single ECCN in Category 3. The latter 

approach more closely follows the 

USML pattern. BIS encourages further 

comment on this issue. 

Corrections to ECCNs 7A006 and 7D101 

This proposed rule would correct the 

reasons for control paragraph of ECCN 

7A006 to state that the MT reason for 

control applies to those items covered 

by ECCN 7A006 that also meet or 

exceed the parameters of ECCN 7A106. 

ECCN 7A006 now applies the missile 

technology reason for control to a range 

of airborne altimeters that extends 

beyond the range of altimeters that are 

on the MTCR Annex. BIS’s practice is to 

apply the MT reason for control only to 

items on that Annex. This proposed 

change would conform ECCN 7A006 to 

that practice. Similarly, this proposed 

rule would add the phrase ‘‘for missile 

technology reasons’’ to the heading of 

ECCN 7D101. ECCN 7D101 applies the 

missile technology reason for control to 

software for a range of commodity 

ECCNs. Not all of those commodities are 

controlled for MT reasons. The text 

proposed here would limit the scope of 

missile technology controls in ECCN 

7A106 to commodities on the MTCR 

Annex, and that of ECCN 7D101 to 

software for commodities on the MTCR 

Annex. 

New 9X620 Series of ECCNs 

Proposed ECCNs 9A620, 9B620, 

9D620, and 9E620 would apply NS1, 

RS1, AT1 and UN reasons for control to 

cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment described in category ML20 

of the WAML, and to test, inspection 

and production equipment, software 

and technology therefor. Category ML20 

covers cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment that is ‘‘specially designed’’ 

to be installed in a vehicle for military 

ground, marine, airborne, or space 

applications. BIS believes that such 

equipment is used in experimental or 

developmental vehicle propulsion 

systems that employ superconducting 

components and cryogenic equipment 

to cool those components. BIS has not 

identified evidence of trade in such 

items. To the extent that exports do 

exist, the items would be subject to the 

license requirements of the USML 

category that controls the vehicle into 

which the equipment would be 

installed, i.e., Category VI, surface 

vessels; Category VII, ground vehicles; 

Category VIII, aircraft; and Category XV, 

spacecraft. BIS proposes to place this 

cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment, its related test, inspection 

and production equipment, and its 

related software and technology into a 

single set of 600 series ECCNs ending 

with the digits ‘‘20’’ to correspond to the 

relevant WAML category. This approach 

would further the administration’s 

Export Control Reform Initiative goal of 

aligning US controls with multilateral 

controls wherever feasible. Each ECCN 

in this series is described more 

specifically below. 

New ECCN 9A620 

Proposed ECCN 9A620.a would 

control equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ 

to be installed in a vehicle for military 

ground, marine, airborne, or space 

applications, capable of operating while 

in motion and of producing or 

maintaining temperatures below 103 K 

(¥170 °C). Paragraph .b would control 

‘‘superconductive’’ electrical equipment 

(rotating machinery and transformers) 

‘‘specially designed’’ to be installed in 

a vehicle for military ground, marine, 

airborne, or space applications, and 

capable of operating while in motion. 

Paragraphs .c through .w would be 

reserved. Paragraph .x would control 

parts, components, accessories and 

attachments ‘‘specially designed’’ for a 

commodity controlled by ECCN 9A620. 

New ECCN 9B620 

Proposed ECCN 9B620 would control 

test, inspection, and production end 

items and equipment ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for the ‘‘development,’’ 

‘‘production,’’ repair, overhaul or 

refurbishing of items controlled in 

proposed ECCN 9A620. 

New ECCN 9D620 

Proposed ECCN 9D620 would control 

software ‘‘specially designed’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ 

operation, or maintenance of 

commodities controlled by ECCNs 

9A620 or 9B620. 

New ECCN 9E620 

Proposed ECCN 9E620 would control 

a ‘‘technology’’ ‘‘required’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ 

operation, installation, maintenance, 

repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of 

commodities or software controlled by 

ECCNs 9A620, 9B620 or 9D620. 

Proposed New ECCNs and License 

Exception STA 

One of the objectives of the Export 

Control Reform Initiative is to align the 

jurisdictional status of technology and 

software with the items to which they 

relate. Thus, for example, as a general 

matter, all technical data and software 

directly related to a defense article, i.e., 

an item identified on the ITAR’s USML, 

will also be ITAR controlled. All 

technology, including technical data 

(other than classified technical data 

directly related to items controlled 

under ECCNs 3A611, 3B611, 3C611, or 

3D611), and software for the production, 

development, or other aspects of an item 

on the EAR’s CCL, will be subject to the 

EAR. Nevertheless, some types of 

software and technology are more 

significant than the commodities that 

are developed or produced from or that 

utilize such software or technology. In 

recognition of that fact, this proposed 

rule would preclude in the ECCNs the 

use of License Exception STA for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45043 

software and technology (other than 

build-to-print software and technology) 

for the following types of items if 

controlled by ECCN 3A611: (1) Helix 

traveling wave tubes (TWTs); (2) 

Transmit/receive or transmit modules; 

(3) Microwave monolithic integrated 

circuits (MMIC)s; and (4) Discrete 

microwave transistors. This fact is noted 

in the License Exception STA 

paragraphs for ECCNs 3D611 and 3E611. 

Request for Comments 

All comments must be in writing and 

submitted via one or more of the 

methods listed under the ADDRESSES

caption to this notice. All comments 

(including any personal identifiable 

information) will be available for public 

inspection and copying. Those wishing 

to comment anonymously may do so by 

submitting their comment via 

regulations.gov and leaving the fields 

for identifying information blank. 

Effects of This Proposed Rule 

Use of License Exceptions 

Military electronic equipment, certain 

cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment, and parts, components, and 

test, inspection, and production 

equipment therefor currently on the 

USML that this rule would place on the 

CCL would become eligible for several 

license exceptions, including STA, 

which would be available for exports to 

certain agencies of NATO governments 

and other multi-regime close allies. The 

exchange of information and statements 

required under STA are substantially 

less burdensome than the license 

application requirements under the 

ITAR, as discussed in more detail in the 

‘‘Regulatory Requirements’’ section of 

this proposed rule. BIS does not intend 

with this proposed rule to move any 

items currently subject to the EAR to a 

600 series ECCN; therefore, it would not 

narrow the scope of license exception 

eligibility for any items currently on the 

CCL. 

Alignment With the Wassenaar 

Arrangement Munitions List 

The Administration has stated since 

the beginning of the Export Control 

Reform Initiative that the reforms will 

be consistent with the obligations of the 

United States to the multilateral export 

control regimes. Accordingly, the 

Administration will, in this and 

subsequent proposed rules, exercise its 

national discretion to implement, 

clarify, and, to the extent feasible, align 

its control text with those of the 

regimes. This proposed rule would 

maintain the alignment that exists 

between the USML, in which military 

electronics are controlled under 

Category XI, and the WAML, in which 

military electronic equipment is 

controlled under ML11, and would be 

controlled by ECCN 3A611 in this 

proposed rule. Similarly, 3B611 aligns 

with WAML 18, which, inter alia, 

controls ‘‘specially designed or 

modified ‘production’ equipment for the 

‘production’ of products specified by 

the Munitions List, and specially 

designed components therefor.’’ 

This proposed rule would align 

cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment currently controlled in 

Categories VI, VII, VIII, and XV of the 

USML with Wassenaar Arrangement 

Munitions List category ML20 by 

controlling them under ECCN 9A620. 

As with other 600 series ECCNs, this 

rule follows the existing CCL numbering 

pattern for test, inspection and 

production equipment (3B611 and 

9B620), software (3D611 and 9D620) 

and technology (3E611 and 9E620), 

rather than strictly following the 

Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List 

pattern of placing production 

equipment, software and technology for 

munitions list items in categories ML18, 

ML21 and ML22, respectively. BIS 

believes that including the ECCNs for 

test, inspection and production 

equipment, software, and technology in 

the same category as the items to which 

they relate results in an easier to 

understand CCL than would separate 

categories. 

Although the Export Administration 

Act expired on August 20, 2001, the 

President, through Executive Order 

13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by 

Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 

2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), as 

extended by the Notice of August 15, 

2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012), 

has continued the Export 

Administration Regulations in effect 

under the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to 

carry out the provisions of the Export 

Administration Act, as appropriate and 

to the extent permitted by law, pursuant 

to Executive Order 13222. 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule has been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ although not economically 

significant, under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the rule has been reviewed by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

2. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information, subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. This proposed 

rule would affect two approved 

collections: Simplified Network 

Application Processing System (control 

number 0694–0088), which includes, 

among other things, license 

applications, and License Exceptions 

and Exclusions (0694–0137). 

As stated in the proposed rule 

published at 76 FR 41958 (July 15, 

2011), BIS initially believed that the 

combined effect of all rules to be 

published adding items to the EAR that 

would be removed from the ITAR as 

part of the administration’s Export 

Control Reform Initiative would 

increase the number of license 

applications to be submitted by 

approximately 16,000 annually. As the 

review of the USML has progressed, the 

interagency group has gained more 

specific information about the number 

of items that would come under BIS 

jurisdiction, whether those items would 

be eligible for export under license 

exception. As of June 21, 2012, BIS 

believes the increase in license 

applications may be 30,000 annually, 

resulting in an increase in burden hours 

of 8,500 (30,000 transactions at 17 

minutes each) under control number 

0694–0088. 

Military electronic equipment, certain 

cryogenic and superconducting 

equipment, related test, inspection and 

production equipment, ‘‘parts,’’ 

‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories’’ and 

‘‘attachments,’’ ‘‘software’’ and 

‘‘technology’’ formerly on the USML 

would become eligible for License 

Exception STA under this rule. BIS 

believes that the increased use of 

License Exception STA resulting from 

the combined effect of all rules to be 

published adding items to the EAR that 

would be removed from the ITAR as 

part of the Administration’s Export 

Control Reform Initiative would 

increase the burden associated with 

control number 0694–0137 by about 

23,858 hours (20,450 transactions @ 1 

hour and 10 minutes each). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45044 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

BIS expects that this increase in 

burden will be more than offset by a 

reduction in burden hours associated 

with approved collections related to the 

ITAR. The largest impact of the 

proposed rule would likely apply to 

exporters of replacement parts for 

military electronic equipment that has 

been approved under the ITAR for 

export to allies and regime partners. 

Because, with few exceptions, the ITAR 

allows exemptions from license 

requirements only for exports to 

Canada, most exports of such parts, 

even when destined to NATO and other 

close allies, require specific State 

Department authorization. Under the 

EAR, as proposed here, such parts 

would become eligible for export to 

NATO and other multi-regime allies 

under License Exception STA. Use of 

License Exception STA imposes a 

paperwork and compliance burden 

because, for example, exporters must 

furnish information about the item 

being exported to the consignee and 

obtain from the consignee an 

acknowledgement and commitment to 

comply with the EAR. However, the 

Administration understands that 

complying with the burdens of STA is 

likely less burdensome than applying 

for licenses. For example, under License 

Exception STA, a single consignee 

statement can apply to an unlimited 

number of products, need not have an 

expiration date, and need not be 

submitted to the government in advance 

for approval. Suppliers with regular 

customers can tailor a single statement 

and assurance to match their business 

relationship rather than applying 

repeatedly for licenses with every 

purchase order to supply reliable 

customers in countries that are close 

allies or members of export control 

regimes or both. 

Even in situations in which a license 

would be required under the EAR, the 

burden is likely to be reduced compared 

to the license requirement of the ITAR. 

In particular, license applications for 

exports of technology controlled by 

ECCN 3E611 are likely to be less 

complex and burdensome than the 

authorizations required to export ITARcontrolled technology, i.e., 

Manufacturing License Agreements and 

Technical Assistance Agreements. 

3. This rule does not contain policies 

with Federalism implications as that 

term is defined under E.O. 13132. 

4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq., generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to the notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Under section 605(b) of the 

RFA, however, if the head of an agency 

(or his or her designee) certifies that a 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, the statute does not require the 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. Pursuant to section 605(b), the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation, 

Department of Commerce, submitted a 

memorandum to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy, Small Business 

Administration, certifying that the 

November 28 (military electronics) rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The rationale for that certification was 

set forth in the preamble to that 

proposed rule (77 FR 70945, 70950– 

70951, November 28, 2012). Although 

BIS received no comments on that 

rationale, and has accordingly made no 

changes to the proposed rule based on 

the RFA certification, BIS has 

determined that, in the interest of 

openness and transparency, it will 

briefly restate the rationale behind the 

certification here. 

This rule, if implemented, is part of 

the Administration’s Export Control 

Reform Initiative, which seeks to revise 

the USML to a positive list—one that 

does not use generic, catch-all controls 

for items listed—and to move some 

items that the President has determined 

no longer merit control under the ITAR 

to control under the CCL. 

Although BIS does not collect data on 

the size of entities that apply for and are 

issued export licenses, and is therefore 

unable to estimate the exact number of 

small entities—as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s regulations 

implementing the RFA—BIS 

acknowledges that some small entities 

may be affected by this proposed rule. 

The main effects on small entities 

resulting from this rule will be in 

application times, costs, and delays in 

receiving licenses to export goods 

subject to the CCL. However, while 

small entities may experience some 

costs and time delays for exports due to 

the license requirements of the CCL, 

these costs and delays will likely be 

significantly less than they were for 

items previously subject to the USML. 

BIS believes that in fact this rule will 

result in significantly reduced 

administrative costs and delays for 

exports of items that will, upon this 

rule’s implementation, be subject to the 

EAR rather than the ITAR. Currently, 

USML applicants must pay to use the 

USML licensing procedure even if they 

never actually are authorized to export. 

Registration fees for manufacturers and 

exporters of articles on the USML start 

at $2,250 per year, increase to $2,750 for 

organizations applying for one to ten 

licenses per year and further increases 

to $2,750 plus $250 per license 

application (subject to a maximum of 

three percent of total application value) 

for those who need to apply for more 

than ten licenses per year. By contrast, 

BIS is statutorily prohibited from 

imposing licensing fees. In addition, 

exporters and reexporters of goods that 

would become subject to the EAR under 

this rule would need fewer licenses 

because their transactions would 

become eligible for license exceptions 

that were not available under the ITAR. 

Additionally, the ITAR controlled parts 

and components even when they were 

incorporated—in any amount—into a 

foreign-made product. That limitation 

on the use of U.S.-made goods subject 

to the ITAR discouraged foreign 

manufacturers from importing U.S. 

goods. However, the EAR has a de 

minimis exception for U.S.- 

manufactured goods that are 

incorporated into foreign-made 

products. This exception may benefit 

small entities by encouraging foreign 

producers to use more U.S.-made items 

in their goods. 

Even where an exporter or reexporter 

would need to obtain a license under 

the EAR, that process is both cheaper 

and the process is more flexible than 

obtaining a license under the ITAR. For 

example, unlike the ITAR, the EAR does 

not require license applicants to provide 

BIS with a purchase order with the 

application, meaning that small (or any) 

entities can enter into negotiations or 

contracts for the sale of goods without 

having to caveat any sale presentations 

with a reference to the need to obtain a 

license under the ITAR before shipment 

can occur. Second, the EAR allows 

license applicants to obtain licenses to 

cover all expected exports or reexports 

to a particular consignee over the life of 

a license, rather than having to obtain a 

new license for every transaction. 

In short, BIS expects that the changes 

to the EAR proposed in this rule will 

have a positive effect on all affected 

entities, including small entities. While 

BIS acknowledges that this rule may 

have some cost impacts to small (and 

other) entities, those costs are more than 

offset by the benefits to the entities from 

the licensing procedures under the EAR, 

which are much less costly and less 

time consuming than the procedures 

under the ITAR. Accordingly, the Chief 

Counsel for Regulation for the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45045 

Department of Commerce has certified 

that this rule, if implemented, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required, and 

none has been prepared. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 774 

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, part 774 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (15 CFR 

Parts 730–774) is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 774—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 774 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 

7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et 

seq., 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 

42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 

1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 

U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 

13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 

228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 

FR 49699 (August 16, 2012). 

■ 2. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

Category 3, amend Export Control 

Classification Number (ECCN) 3A101 

by: 

■ a. revising the Related Controls 

paragraph in the List of Items Controlled 

section; and 

■ b. revising paragraph a in the Items 

paragraph in the List of Items Controlled 

section, to read as follows: 

Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—The 

Commerce Control List 

* * * * * 

3A101 Electronic equipment, devices and 

components, other than those controlled 

by 3A001, as follows (see List of Items 

Controlled). 

* * * * * 

List of Items Controlled 

* * * * * 

Related Controls: See also ECCN 4A003.e for 

controls on analog-to-digital converter, 

printed circuit boards, or modules for 

computers. 

* * * * * 

Items: 

a. Analog-to-digital converters usable in 

‘‘missiles,’’ and having any of the following 

characteristics: 

a.1. ‘‘Specially designed’’ to meet military 

specifications for ruggedized equipment; 

a.2. ‘‘Specially designed’’ for military use 

and being any of the following types: 

a.2.a. Analog-to-digital converter 

microcircuits which are radiation-hardened 

or have all of the following characteristics: 

a.2.a.1. Having a quantization 

corresponding to 8 bits or more when coded 

in the binary system; 

a.2.a.2. Rated for operation in the 

temperature range from ¥54 °C to above 

+125 °C; and 

a.2.a.3. Hermetically sealed; or 

a.2.b. Electrical input type analog-to-digital 

converter printed circuit boards or modules, 

having all of the following characteristics: 

a.2.b.1. Having a quantization 

corresponding to 8 bits or more when coded 

in the binary system; 

a.2.b.2. Rated for operation in the 

temperature range from below ¥45 °C to 

above +55 °C; and 

a.2.b.3. Incorporating microcircuits 

identified in 3A101.a.2 or a.3; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 3A292 

and 3A980, add new entry for ECCN 

3A611 to read as follows: 

3A611 Military electronics, as follows (see 

list of items controlled). 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry except 

3A611.y.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry except 

3A611.y.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry except 

3A611.y.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

LVS: $1500 for 3A611.a, .d through .h and .x; 

N/A for ECCN 3A611.c and .y 

GBS: N/A 

CIV: N/A 

STA: Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any item in 3A611. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: End items in number; parts, 

components, accessories and attachments 

in $ value 

Related Controls: (1) Electronic items that are 

enumerated in USML Category XI or other 

USML categories, and technical data 

(including software) directly related 

thereto, are subject to the ITAR. (2) 

Application specific integrated circuits 

(ASICs) and programmable logic devices 

that are programmed for defense articles 

that are subject to the ITAR are controlled 

in USML Category XI(c)(1). (3) See ECCN 

3A001.a.7 for controls on unprogrammed 

programmable logic devices. (4) Printed 

circuit boards and populated circuit cards 

whose layout is specially designed for 

defense articles that are subject to the ITAR 

are controlled in USML Category XI(c)(2). 

(5) Multichip modules for which the 

pattern or layout is ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for defense articles that are subject to the 

ITAR are controlled in USML Category 

XI(c)(3). (6) Electronic items ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for military use that are not 

controlled in any USML category but are 

within the scope of another ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN are controlled by that ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN. Thus, ECCN 3A611 controls only 

electronic items ‘‘specially designed’’ for a 

military use that are not otherwise within 

the scope of a USML category or ‘‘600 

series’’ ECCN other than ECCN 3A611. For 

example, electronic components not 

enumerated on the USML or a 600 series 

other than 3A611 that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a military aircraft controlled 

by USML Category VIII or ECCN 9A610 are 

controlled by the catch-all control in ECCN 

9A610.x. Electronic components not 

enumerated on the USML or another 600 

series entry that are ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for a military vehicle controlled by USML 

Category VII or ECCN 0A606 are controlled 

by ECCN 0A606.x. Electronic components 

not enumerated on the USML that are 

‘‘specially designed’’ for a missile 

controlled by USML Category IV are 

controlled by ECCN 0A604. (7) Certain 

radiation hardened microelectronic circuits 

are controlled by ECCN 9A515.d, when 

‘‘specially designed’’ for defense articles, 

600 series items, or items controlled by 

9A515. 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: 

a. Electronic ‘‘equipment,’’ ‘‘end items,’’ 

and ‘‘systems’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

military use that are not enumerated in either 

a USML category or another ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN. 

Note: ECCN 3A611.a includes any radar, 

telecommunications, acoustic or computer 

equipment, end items, or systems ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for military use that are not 

enumerated in any USML category or 

controlled by a ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN. 

b. [Reserved] 

c. Microwave ‘‘monolithic integrated 

circuits’’ (MMIC) power amplifiers having 

any of the following: 

c.1. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 

GHz and having any of the following: 

c.1.a. A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 15%, with a peak saturated power 

output greater than 75 W (48.75 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 50% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; or 

c.1.b. A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 60%, with a peak saturated power 

output greater than 150 W (51.8 dBm) 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

c.2. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 

GHz and having any of the following: 

c.2.a A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

15%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 55 W (47.4 dBm) and a power 

added efficiency of 45% or greater anywhere 

within the operating frequency range; or 

c.2.b. A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 55%, with a peak saturated power 

output greater than 110 W (50.4 dBm) 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45046 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

c.3. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 

GHz and having any of the following: 

c.3.a A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

15%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 40 W (46 dBm) and a power 

added efficiency of 45% or greater anywhere 

within the operating frequency range; or 

c.3.b A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

50%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 80 W (49 dBm) anywhere within 

the operating frequency range; 

c.4. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 

GHz and having any of the following: 

c.4.a. A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 15%, with a peak saturated power 

output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 40% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; or 

c.4.b A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

45%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 40 W (46 dBm) anywhere within 

the operating frequency range; 

c.5. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 

GHz and having any of the following: 

c.5.a A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

10%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 10 W (40.0 dBm) and a power 

added efficiency of 40% or greater anywhere 

within the operating frequency range; or 

c.5.b A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

40%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 20 W (43 dBm) anywhere within 

the operating frequency range; 

c.6. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 8.5 GHz up to and including 16 

GHz and having any of the following: 

c.6.a. A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 10%, with a peak saturated power 

output greater than 5 W (37 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 35% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; or 

c.6.b A ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater than 

40%, with a peak saturated power output 

greater than 10 W (40 dBm) anywhere within 

the operating frequency range; 

c.7. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 

GHz with a ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 10%, and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 3 W (34.77 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 20% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

c.8. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 

GHz, and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 2 W (33 dBm) anywhere 

within the operating frequency range; 

c.9. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 

GHz with a ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 10%, and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 1 W (30 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 15% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

c.10. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 43.5 GHz up to and including 75 

GHz with a ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 10%, and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 31.62 mW (15 dBm) and 

a power added efficiency of 10% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

c.11. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 75 GHz up to and including 90 

GHz with a ‘‘fractional bandwidth’’ greater 

than 5%, and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 10 mW (10 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 10% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

c.12. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 90 GHz up to and including 110 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 1.0 mW (0 dBm) 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; or 

c.13. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 110 GHz and having a peak 

saturated power output greater than 100 nW 

(-40 dBm) anywhere within the operating 

frequency range. 

Note 1 to 3A611.c: The status of an item 

whose rated operating frequency includes 

frequencies listed in more than one frequency 

range, as defined by 3A611.c.1 through 

3A611.c.13 is determined by the lowest 

saturated output power threshold. 

Note 2 to 3A611.c: Peak saturated power 

output may also be referred to as output 

power, saturated power output, maximum 

power output, peak power output, or peak 

envelope power output. 

d. Discrete microwave transistors having 

any of the following: 

d.1. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 400 W (56 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 50% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.2. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 205 W (53.12 dBm) and 

a power added efficiency of 50% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.3. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 115 W (50.61 dBm) and 

a power added efficiency of 45% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.4. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 60 W (47.78 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 45% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.5. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 50 W (47 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 50% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.6. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 8.5 GHz and up to and including 

12 GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 35% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.7. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 12 GHz up to and including 16 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 40 W (46 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 35% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.8. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 30% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; 

d.9. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 2 W (33 dBm) anywhere 

within the operating frequency range; 

d.10. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 

GHz and having a peak saturated power 

output greater than 1 W (30 dBm) and a 

power added efficiency of 20% or greater 

anywhere within the operating frequency 

range; or 

d.11. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 43.5 GHz to and including 75 GHz 

and having a peak saturated power output 

greater than 0.5 W (27 dBm) and a power 

added efficiency of 15% or greater anywhere 

within the operating frequency range; 

d.12. Rated for operation at frequencies 

exceeding 75 GHz and having a peak 

saturated power output greater than 0.1 W 

(20 dBm) anywhere within the operating 

frequency range. 

Note 1 to 3A611.d: The status of an item 

whose rated operating frequency includes 

frequencies listed in more than one frequency 

range, as defined by 3A611.d.1 through 

3A611.d.12 is determined by the lowest 

saturated output power threshold. 

Note 2 to 3A611.d: Peak saturated power 

output may also be referred to as output 

power, saturated power output, maximum 

power output, peak power output, or peak 

envelope power output. 

Note 3 to 3A611.d: 3A611.d includes bare 

dice, dice mounted on carriers, or dice 

mounted in packages. Some discrete 

transistors may also be referred to as power 

amplifiers, but the status of these products 

are determined by 3A001.b.3. and 3A611.d. 

e. High frequency (HF) surface wave radar 

that maintains the positional state of 

maritime surface or low altitude airborne 

objects of interest in a received radar signal 

through time. 

Note: ECCN 3A611.e does not apply to 

systems, equipment, and assemblies 

‘‘specially designed’’ for marine traffic 

control. 

f. Application specific integrated circuits 

(ASICs) and programmable logic devices 

(PLD) programmed for 600 series items. 

g. Printed circuit boards and populated 

circuit card assemblies for which the layout 

is ‘‘specially designed’’ for 600 series items. 

h. Multichip modules for which the pattern 

or layout is ‘‘specially designed’’ for 600 

series items. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45047 

i. through w. [Reserved] 

x. ‘‘Parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories’’ 

and ‘‘attachments’’ that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a commodity controlled by this 

entry or for an article controlled by USML 

Category XI, and not enumerated in any 

USML category. 

Note 1 to ECCN 3A611.x: ECCN 3A611.x 

includes parts, components, accessories, and 

attachments ‘‘specially designed’’ for a radar, 

telecommunications, acoustic systems or 

equipment or computer ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for military use that are neither enumerated 

in any USML category nor controlled in 

another ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN. 

Note 2 to ECCN 3A611.x: ECCN 3A611.x 

controls parts and components ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for underwater sensors or 

projectors controlled by USML Category 

XI(c)(12) containing single-crystal lead 

magnesium niobate lead titanate (PMN–PT) 

based piezoelectrics. 

y. Specific ‘‘parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ 

‘‘accessories’’ and ‘‘attachments’’ ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a commodity subject to control 

in this entry and not elsewhere specified in 

any 600-series ECCN as follows: 

y.1. Electric couplings; 

y.2. Cathode ray tubes (CRTs); 

y.3. Electrical connectors; 

y.4. Electric fans; 

y.5. Rotron fans; 

y.6. Electric fuses other than those 

specially designed for explosive detonation; 

y.7. Grid vacuum tubes; 

y.8. Audio headphones, earphones, 

handsets, and headsets; 

y.9. Heat sinks; 

y.10. Intercom systems; 

y.11. Joy sticks; 

y.12. Loudspeakers; 

y.13. Mica paper capacitors; 

y.14. Microphones; 

y.15. Potentiometers; 

y.16. Rheostats; 

y.17. Electric connector backshells; 

y.18. Solenoids; 

y.19. Speakers; 

y.20. Electric switches other than RF, 

pressure, diplexer, duplexer, circulator, or 

isolator switches; 

y.21. Trackballs; 

y.22. Electric transformers; 

y.23. Vacuum tubes other than TWTs, 

klystron tubes, or tubes specially designed 

for articles enumerated in USML Category 

XII; 

y.24. Waveguide. 

■ 4. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 3B002 

and 3B991, add new entry for ECCN 

3B611 to read as follows: 

3B611 Test, inspection, and production 

commodities for military electronics, as 

follows (see List of Items Controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry.

RS Column 1 

Control(s) Country chart 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

LVS: $1500 

GBS: N/A 

CIV: N/A 

STA: Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any item in 3B611. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: N/A 

Related Controls: N/A 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: 

a. Test, inspection, and production end 

items and equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for the ‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ repair, 

overhaul or refurbishing of items controlled 

in ECCN 3A611 or USML Category XI that are 

not enumerated in USML Category XI or 

controlled by another ‘‘600 series’’ ECCN. 

b. through w. [Reserved] 

x. ‘‘Parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories’’ 

and ‘‘attachments’’ that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a commodity listed in this 

entry and that are not enumerated on the 

USML or controlled by another ‘‘600 series’’ 

ECCN. 

■ 5. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 3D101 

and 3D980, add a new entry for ECCN 

3D611 to read as follows: 

3D611 ‘‘Software’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

military electronics, as follows (see List 

of Items Controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry except 

3D611.y.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry except 

3D611.y.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry except 

3D611.y.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

CIV: N/A 

TSR: N/A 

STA: 1. Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any ‘‘software’’ in 3D611. 2. 

Except for ‘‘build-to-print’’ software, 

License Exception STA is not eligible for 

software enumerated in ECCN 3D611.b. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: $ value 

Related Controls: ‘‘Software’’ directly related 

to articles enumerated in USML Category 

XI is controlled in USML Category XI(d). 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: 

a. Software ‘‘specially designed’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ operation, or 

maintenance of commodities controlled by 

ECCN 3A611 (other than 3A611.y) and 

3B611. 

b. Software specially designed for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ operation or 

maintenance of technology in ECCN 3E611.b. 

c. through x. [Reserved] 

y. Specific ‘‘software’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for the ‘‘production,’’ ‘‘development,’’ 

operation or maintenance of commodities 

enumerated in ECCNs 3A611.y. 

■ 6. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 3E292 

and 3E980, add new entry for ECCN 

3E611 to read as follows: 

3E611 Technology ‘‘required’’ for military 

electronics, as follows (see List of Items 

Controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry except 

3E611.y.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry except 

3E611.y.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry except 

3E611.y.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

CIV: N/A 

TSR: N/A 

STA: 1. Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any technology in 3E611. 2. 

Except for ‘‘build-to-print’’ technology, 

License Exception STA is not eligible for 

technology enumerated in ECCN 3E611.b. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: $ value 

Related Controls: Technical data directly 

related to articles enumerated in USML 

Category XI is controlled in USML 

Category XI(d). 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: 

a. ‘‘Technology’’ (other than that described 

in 3E611.b or 3E611.y) ‘‘required’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ operation, 

installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, 

or refurbishing of commodities or software 

controlled by ECCN 3A611, 3B611 or 3D611. 

b. ‘‘Technology’’ ‘‘required’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ operation, 

installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, 

or refurbishing of the following if controlled 

by ECCN 3A611, including 3A611.x: 

b.1. Helix traveling wave tubes (TWTs); 

b.2. Transmit/receive or transmit modules; 

b.3. Microwave monolithic integrated 

circuits (MMIC); or 

b.4. Discrete microwave transistors. 

c. through x. [Reserved] 

y. Specific ‘‘technology’’ ‘‘required’’ for the 

‘‘production,’’ ‘‘development,’’ operation, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45048 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, 

or refurbishing of commodities or software 

enumerated in ECCNs 3A611.y or 3D611.y. 

■ 7. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

amend ECCN 4A003 by revising the 

License Requirements section to read as 

follows: 

4A003 ‘‘Digital computers’’, ‘‘electronic 

assemblies’’, and related equipment 

therefor, as follows (see List of Items 

Controlled) and specially designed 

components therefor. 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, MT, CC, AT, NP 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to 

4A003.b and .c.

NS Column 1 

NS applies to 

4A003.e and .g.

NS Column 2 

MT applies to 

4A003.e when the 

parameters in 

3A101.a.2.b are 

met or exceeded.

MT Column 1 

CC applies to ‘‘digital 

computers’’ for 

computerized finger-print equipment.

CC Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry (refer to 

4A994 for controls 

on ‘‘digital computers’’ with a APP 

>0.0128 but ≤3.0 

WT).

AT Column 1 

NP applies, unless a License Exception is 

available. See § 742.3(b) of the EAR for 

information on applicable licensing review 

policies. 

Note 1: For all destinations, except those 

countries in Country Group E:1 of 

Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR, no 

license is required (NLR) for computers with 

an ‘‘Adjusted Peak Performance’’ (‘‘APP’’) 

not exceeding 3.0 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT) 

and for ‘‘electronic assemblies’’ described in 

4A003.c that are not capable of exceeding an 

‘‘Adjusted Peak Performance’’ (‘‘APP’’) 

exceeding 3.0 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT) in 

aggregation, except certain transfers as set 

forth in § 746.3 (Iraq). 

Note 2: Special Post Shipment Verification 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 

exports of computers to destinations in 

Computer Tier 3 may be found in § 743.2 of 

the EAR. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 4A102 

and 4A980, add a new entry for ECCN 

4A611 as follows: 

4A611 Computers, and parts, components, 

accessories, and attachments ‘‘specially 

designed’’ therefor, ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for military use that are not enumerated 

in any USML category are controlled by 

ECCN 3A611. 

■ 9. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

amend ECCN 5A001 by revising the 

Related Controls paragraph of the List of 

Items Controlled section, to read as 

follows: 

5A001 Telecommunications systems, 

equipment, components and accessories, 

as follows (see List of Items Controlled). 

* * * * * 

List of Items Controlled 

* * * * * 

Related Controls: 1. See USML Category 

XV for controls on telecommunications 

equipment defined in 5A001.a.1 and any 

other equipment used in satellites that are 

subject to the ITAR. See USML Category XI 

for controls on direction finding equipment 

defined in 5A001.e and any other military or 

intelligence electronic equipment subject to 

the ITAR. 2. See USML Category XI(a)(4)(iii) 

for controls on electronic attack and jamming 

equipment defined in 5A001.f and .h that are 

subject to the ITAR. 3. See also ECCNs 

5A101, 5A980, and 5A991. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 5A101 

and 5A980, add a new entry for ECCN 

5A611 as follows: 

5A611 Telecommunications equipment, 

and parts, components, accessories, and 

attachments ‘‘specially designed’’ 

therefor, ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

military use that are not enumerated in 

any USML category are controlled by 

ECCN 3A611. 

■ 11. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 6A226 

and 6A991, add a new entry for ECCN 

6A611 as follows: 

6A611 Acoustic systems and equipment, 

radar, and parts, components, 

accessories, and attachments ‘‘specially 

designed’’ therefor, ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for military use that are not enumerated 

in any USML category or other ECCN 

are controlled by ECCN 3A611. 

■ 12. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

ECCN 7A006, revise the Reasons for 

Control paragraph of the License 

Requirements section to read as follows: 

7A006 Airborne altimeters operating at 

frequencies other than 4.2 to 4.4 GHz 

inclusive and having any of the 

following (see List of Items Controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, MT, AT 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry.

NS Column 1 

MT applies to commodities in this 

entry that meet or 

exceed the parameters of 7A106.

MT Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

* * * * * 

■ 13. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 7A117 

and 7A994, add a new entry for ECCN 

7A611 as follows: 

7A611 Navigation and avionics equipment 

and, systems and parts, components, 

accessories, and attachments ‘‘specially 

designed’’ therefor, ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for military use that are not enumerated 

in any USML category or another 600 

series ECCN are controlled by ECCN 

3A611. 

■ 14. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

ECCN 7D101, revise the heading to read 

as follows: 

7D101 ‘‘Software’’ specially designed or 

modified for the ‘‘use’’ of equipment 

controlled for missile technology (MT) 

reasons by 7A001 to 7A006, 7A101 to 

7A107, 7A115, 7A116, 7A117, 7B001, 

7B002, 7B003, 7B101, 7B102, or 7B103. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 9A120 

and 9A980, add a new entry for ECCN 

9A620 to read as follows: 

9A620 Cryogenic and ‘‘superconductive’’ 

equipment, as follows (see list of items 

controlled). 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

LVS: $1500 

GBS: N/A 

CIV: N/A 

STA: Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any item in 9A620. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: End items in number; parts, 

components, accessories and attachments 

in $ value. 

Related Controls: Electronic items that are 

enumerated in USML Category XI or other 

USML categories, and technical data 

(including software) directly related 

thereto, are subject to the ITAR. 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: 

a. Equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ to be 

installed in a vehicle for military ground, 

marine, airborne, or space applications, and 

capable of operating while in motion and of 

producing or maintaining temperatures 

below 103 K (-170°C). 

Note to 9A620.a: ECCN 9A620.a includes 

mobile systems incorporating or employing 

accessories or components manufactured 

from non-metallic or non-electrical 

conductive materials such as plastics or 

epoxy-impregnated materials. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45049 

b. ‘‘Superconductive’’ electrical equipment 

(rotating machinery and transformers) 

‘‘specially designed’’ to be installed in a 

vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne, 

or space applications, and capable of 

operating while in motion. 

Note to 9A610.b: ECCN 9A620.b. does not 

control direct-current hybrid homopolar 

generators that have single-pole normal 

metal armatures which rotate in a magnetic 

field produced by superconducting windings, 

provided those windings are the only 

superconducting components in the 

generator. 

c. through w. [Reserved] 

x. ‘‘Parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories’’ 

and ‘‘attachments’’ that are ‘‘specially 

designed’’ for a commodity controlled by 

ECCN 9A620. 

■ 16. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 9B117 

and 9B990, add a new entry for ECCN 

9B620 to read as follows: 

9B620 Test, inspection, and production 

commodities for cryogenic and 

‘‘superconductive’’ equipment (see List 

of Items controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

LVS: $1500 

GBS: N/A 

CIV: N/A 

STA: Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any item in 9B620. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: N/A 

Related Controls: N/A 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: 

a. Test, inspection, and production end 

items and equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ 

for the ‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ repair, 

overhaul or refurbishing of items controlled 

in ECCN 9A620. 

b. [Reserved] 

■ 17. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 9D105 

and 9D990, add a new entry for ECCN 

9D620 to read as follows: 

9D620 ‘‘Software’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

cryogenic and ‘‘superconductive’’ 

equipment, as follows (see List of Items 

Controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

CIV: N/A 

TSR: N/A 

STA: Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any ‘‘software’’ in 9D620. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: $ value 

Related Controls: ‘‘Software’’ directly related 

to articles enumerated on USML are 

subject to the control of that USML 

category. 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: Software ‘‘specially designed’’ for 

the ‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ operation, 

or maintenance of commodities controlled by 

ECCNs 9A620 or 9B620. 

■ 18. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 

between the entries for ECCNs 9E102 

and 9E990, add a new entry for ECCN 

9E620 to read as follows: 

9E620 Technology ‘‘required’’ for cryogenic 

and ‘‘superconductive’’ equipment, as 

follows (see List of Items Controlled). 

License Requirements 

Reason for Control: NS, RS, AT, UN 

Control(s) Country chart 

NS applies to entire 

entry.

NS Column 1 

RS applies to entire 

entry.

RS Column 1 

AT applies to entire 

entry.

AT Column 1 

UN applies to entire 

entry.

See § 746.1(b) for UN 

controls 

License Exceptions 

CIV: N/A 

TSR: N/A 

STA: Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception 

STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be 

used for any technology in 9E620. 

List of Items Controlled 

Unit: $ value 

Related Controls: Technical data directly 

related to articles enumerated on USML are 

subject to the control of that USML 

category. 

Related Definitions: N/A 

Items: ‘‘Technology’’ ‘‘required’’ for the 

‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ operation, 

installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, 

or refurbishing of commodities or software 

controlled by ECCN 9A620, 9B620 or 

9D620. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17559 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3