Where Industry and Security Intersect
What's New | Sitemap | Search
The MTAC meeting was held on 28 April 2005 in the Department of Commerce (DoC) building, room 6087B. The meeting was called to order at 10:40 AM by Chairman, Dr. James Estep. Mr. Jeffrey Tripp was the DoC Designated Federal Officer of the TAC. The meeting consisted of both open and closed sessions with non-MTAC/public visitors in attendance for the open session only.
ATTENDANCE:
Material TAC Members:
Dr. James Estep, Chairman
Dr. Gillian Woollett
Ms. Marybeth Kelliher
Dr. Samuel McDonald
Mr. Hal Lindsay
Mr. Andy Skibo
Mr. Jeffrey Tripp, Designated Federal Officer - DoC
Mr. Steven Goldman – DoC
Dr. Doug Brown - DoC
Ms. Yvette Springer, Govt. Liaison - DoC
Visitors:
John Albert, Foreign Affairs Officer, Dept of State
Kenneth W. Hutton – Hyperion Catalysis Int’l, Inc
Lynn Robitaille, Coudert Brothers, LLP
Jonathan Wise, Agilent Technologies
The meeting was opened with introductions of the MTAC members and visitors from the business community.
Following the opening, Ms. Yvette Springer was introduced as the new Government Liaison for the MTAC. She replaced Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter who supported the MTAC for 16 years. Ms. Carpenter was recognized for her long, dedicated and superb service to the committee. She will be missed by the MTAC and all members wish her well in her next position.
The visiting public was given a chance to bring up topics to the TAC, but no one gave a presentation or raised a topic of interest.
The meeting continued with a presentation by Mr. Matt Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Control, who gave an update on the Australian Group 2005 Plenary session. The topics covered during the session focused on recent changes to chemical and biological controls. Mr. Borman said detailed information would be provided by Dr. Doug Brown later in the meeting and that the report from the plenary session would be published in about six weeks.
Mr. Borman also commented on the Inspector General’s recent review of the chemical and biological export control program. All findings were of a minor nature and could be readily addressed. The most important issue was the time limits to issue licenses for export. He encouraged all to read the report, at least the executive summary. Additionally, he commented on the U.S. House of Representatives International Committee will be looking at the reports to set the stage for future meetings.
There were a few questions for Mr. Borman, with some centering on industry understanding and complying with the export control regulations, the EAR. There were discussions on how DoC has interacted with industry groups and made training available for EAR compliance officers. There was a discussion on developing a specific targeted training and discussion meeting on chemical and biological export control issues, especially with regard to “deemed” export control and the impact of limiting foreign scientists participation in U.S. defense research programs.
The next agenda item was a topic on the lists of chemical agents in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Mr. Steven Goldman raised the item for discussion at the last MTAC meeting and led the discussion during this meeting. There is no requirement in the CWC to reassess the chemical agents’ lists (schedules 1 through 3) for consideration of change. The scheduled chemicals are not periodically reviewed to assess 1) should all chemical still be on the lists, 2) is there a need to add new chemicals, or 3) should some chemicals be moved from their current schedule to another. The discussion also addressed the process where such reassessments could be conducted (how change should be undertaken - process of assessment). The TAC members were asked to consider this question and discuss this within their organizations with a report back at the next meeting.
Other topics covered during Mr. Goldman’s discussion:
The new regulations expanding the coverage of the license requirement for chemical and biological production equipment was published. All destinations are now covered unless in the Australian Group and expands the catch all controls from a few countries to all, and, of course, covers all U.S. persons world-wide also. These expansions of license requirement will substantially drive up the volume of applications. The DoC is committed to expeditious review of the requests.
For deemed exports of chemical and biological equipment, it was felt that 120 day savings clause is adequate for industry to acquire licenses for compliance with the new controls. Currently there are ~1,000 license/year applications for deemed exports for all CCLs and this should not increase the number substantially.
Ms. Marybeth Kelliher said that her organization, American Chemical Council (ACC), will have comments on the impact of changing CWC controls on chemicals. They represent over 60 companies and they are compiling statistics on common shipping areas and volume of materials shipped. The ACC is in regular dialogue with Mr. Goldman on this topic.
For application reviews, the Department of Defense (DoD) has assured the DoC they will provide expeditious review of all applications. There are four (4) agencies that review applications; the DoD being only one.
Two questions for Mr. Goldman:
H.. Lindsay – Are the controlled items limited to Australian Group lists? No.
L. Robitaille – For pump manufacturers will there be a delay in license processing? No.
Dr. Brown also led the discussion on the next agenda topic; additions to the Commerce Control List (CCL) list of biological agents. Currently the Department of Commerce (DoC) only controls biological agents on the Australia Group list. That list is different from the biological agents of concern within the United States as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The select agents currently on the CDC and USDA lists contain 21 biological agents that are not on the Australian Group list. The DoC plans to update the CCL to reflect the select agent lists maintained by both CDC and USDA. When those lists change the DoC CCL will adjust accordingly. This change will provide consistency within the United States on control of select agents. A document listing the agents and the concept of the CCL change can be found on the IBS Technical Advisory Committees website.
Dr. Woollett raised a question during this discussion, that being how BSE got on the list of controlled biological agents. This was not readily resolved, but the DoC had no equities with respect to the select agent lists.
There was a discussion on how select agents are controlled in the U.S. Under the Select Agent Regulations implemented by the CDC and USDA, an organization must submit an application to become registered under the regulations (42 CFR 73, 7 CRF 331, 9 CFR 121). Either the CDC or the USDA will inspect and approve the application which grants the organization permission to hold, use and transfer select agents. Once this is done the organization then initiates an EA 101 process to transfer agents from other organizations to them. The EA 101 is approved by CDC or USDA before another organization can ship agent to the requestor. This process was first established in 1997 and updated in 2003 and 2005.
The meeting was then adjourned.