INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ISTAC)

January 26, 2011 - 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM

SPAWAR, Bldg. 33 Cloud Room, San Diego CA

MINUTES OF MEETING

 

Committee Title:         Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC)

Date:                           November 7-8, 2012

Time:                           November 7th from 9:00 AM to 4:20 PM
                                                November 8th from 9:05 AM to 12:55 PM

Location:                     November 7th in Room 3884, HCHB
                                                November 8th in Room 3884, HCHB

Agenda Item Presentations/Discussions:

PUBLIC SESSION (November 7, 2012)

The meeting opened at 9:00 AM.  Approximately 27 people were in attendance.

  • Opening:  Jonathan Wise opened the meeting with introductions and request for comments from the public.  There were no public comments.
  • Working Group Reports: Key points from the Working Group reports were:

Cat 3A (reported by Jonathan Wise): This group has submitted several Wassenaar proposals for 2013; the complete list will be presented later today. Additionally, modular instruments and the associated the export control issues have been identified as an emerging topic for study in 2013.

Cat 3B (reported by Joel Cook): This group has submitted a Wassenaar proposal for 2013 to delete the controls on dry etch (3B1c).

Cat 4 (reported by Mark Renfeld): This group has submitted two Wassenaar proposals for 2013; these will be presented later today. This group has also identified an issue with the FNR review requirement in License Exception APP.

Cat 5p1 (reported by Jonathan Wise): This group will be looking at the 5E1c1 technology control in 2013. The issue of the ENC control threshold for satellite modems remains open, awaiting feedback from BIS.

Cat 5p2 (reported by Roz Thomsen): This group has submitted two Wassenaar proposals for 2013, pertaining to OAM and to specially designed, and remains interested in working on a mass-market software decontrol. Additionally, this group will be reviewing the 740.17(b)(2) criteria with regard to satellite applications.

  • APP, Aggregation & Performance in Cat 4:  Henry Brandt presented an informational overview on APP, aggregation and performance.
    • The starting point of this presentation is that Note 6 defines when to aggregate, and that APP is intended to be a method for rank-ordering performance. However, “aggregation” and “performance” are undefined terms.
    • What matters most is application turnaround time, but this can be thought of in two ways: throughput (number of jobs completed within a given time, i.e., “capacity” systems) or turnaround time (how fast can a single application be completed, i.e., “capability” systems).
    • Joel Cook asked whether the CPU is a limiting factor. Henry responded that it might not be, but for practical simplicity once simply chooses floating point performance as the relevant metric.
    • Matt Jones asked about parallel processing. Henry explained that this is context-specific. He cited internet searching as an easily parallelizable task, but noted that this is so because it is actually many independent small tasks. By contrast, other applications may have time-critical components (e.g., for weather forecasting, one generally wants a result now, not after the weather event has occurred).
    • Henry suggests that the national security concerns underlying the 4A3 controls pertain to “capability” systems. The reason that throughput does not matter to APP is substitution: many small applications are not equivalent to one large application; the applications of interest do not produce useful results in a timely on PC clusters.
    • From this, it can be understood that “performance” in Cat 4 means the execution speed, in double-precision flops, of a single application running on a full system (the unwritten assumption is that all systems implement the IEEE-754 floating point standard). This is obtained by harnessing all the processors (cores) in the computer such that they each execute a portion of a single application in a single application in a tightly-synchronized manner.
    • One can gain insight into why APP aggregates only double-precision floating point by performing a thought experiment: Could one easily circumvent the Cat 4 controls on HPC?  In theory, one could develop a 63-bit floating-point architecture that has massive capability but an APP of zero.  In practice, however, this would have little benefit because it would not be financially viable, because existing software would not run correctly on this system and this system would have huge costs for development of both the hardware and the software. The conclusion is that shorter word-length architectures lack sufficient precision to handle the applications of interest, and for that reason they are excluded from APP.
    • Regarding aggregation, the APP formula and associated Notes are intentionally imprecise, intended to be flexible to accommodate new architectures and new interconnect standards.
    • Existing guidance on APP is primarily the “Practitioner’s Guide to APP” (http://www.bis.doc.gov/hpcs/app-wtpractitionersguidefeb22with-cover.pdf).
    • The philosophical underpinnings of aggregation make sense: 1) The regulations implicitly acknowledge the uncontrollability of commodity clusters. 2) The local-area network hardware (e.g., Ethernet or InfiniBand) used to build these clusters is not “specially designed” for aggregation. 3) Developing a proprietary interconnect is expensive.
    • Greg Tarr asked whether it would be possible to list the HPC systems that are controlled. Henry responded that it is possible to do that at any given time, but the list of controlled systems evolves with time and thus cannot form the basis of a viable approach to export control.
    • It is necessary to aggregate in the following cases: 1) All cores in a microprocessor sharing memory or a proprietary interconnect; 2) All microprocessors within a computer/node sharing memory or a proprietary interconnect; 3) All nodes in a system using a proprietary interconnect; 4) But not if using LANs (e.g., Ethernet) or standard I/O adapters (e.g., InfiniBand).
    • Henry summarized that current practice seems to be working well. Industry appears to apply the regulations in a fair and consistent manner, and questions about interpretations are rare, which suggests that the control text is aging well in the face of evolving architectures.
    • Matt Jones asked how this applies to the 4E technology controls. Henry responded that there is little export licensing burden for hardware, but that the deemed export burden is relatively larger because the control thresholds tend to be lower for technology than for hardware and development/design occurs several years before hardware is available commercially. David Lindsay concurred with this viewpoint.
    • Roz Thomsen asked whether there are any issues with the weighting factors (0.9 for vector processors and 0.3 for non-vector processors). Henry responded that there are no issues or concerns with the interpretation of APP: with the exception of some NEC machines which use the 0.9 factor, all other machines use the 0.3 factor.  David Lindsay added that “vector processor” is tightly defined such that microprocessors fail to meet the control thresholds (because they are far below 64 double-precision words).
    • Because this presentation was informational, no specific follow-up actions were needed.

 

  • Industry Submissions for 2013 Wassenaar Proposals:  Jonathan Wise presented an overview of proposals that industry has submitted to BIS, for consideration in the 2013 Wassenaar cycle.
    • 3A1a5: Update the control thresholds for ADC to reflect the progress of technology since the last update in 2010. Refer to Dave Robertson’s presentation in the minutes of the July 2012 ISTAC meeting.
    • 3A1a2-3A1a4: Delete the controls on various types of magnetic tape instrumentation recorders, because these are a sunset technology, being replaced by hard-drive recorders.
    • 3A2c1:  Delete the control on Resolution Bandwidth (RBW).   This parameter was established as the inverse of 100 ns pulse in 3a2d1, but it is now believed that reasoning is technically sound.
    • 3A2d1:  Editorial correction to the definition of pulse. This would update “pulse” to “pulse modulated signal”, for improved clarity
    • 3A2d4: Update to control formulae for phase noise.  This would update the controls to remove the step-change at 10 kHz offset and replace it with an inflection point at 5 kHz offset, so that the shape of the lines describing control thresholds more closely match the shape of phase noise curves of actual instruments.
    • 3B1c: Delete the control on dry etch. These tools are non-deterministic and thus not controllable under the standard formulations of control language.
    • 3D3: Delete the control on physics-based software, as the subject software is believed not to exist and unlikely to exist in the future. Refer to Larry Disenhof’s presentation in the minutes of the July 2012 ISTAC meeting.
    • 3E2: Delete the control on microprocessor technology. This is believed to be widely disseminated such that control is no longer feasible.
    • 4A3: Deletion of all of 4A3, in recognition of the fact that high-performance computing is now ubiquitous and no longer susceptible to control. Instead of on HPC hardware, control should be on pertinent software. The Cat 4 Working Group recognizes that this likely to encounter political resistance, and for that reason believes that it is important to start the discussion now.
    • 4A3b/4E1b: As a backup, in case 4A3 deletion cannot be agreed, raise the APP control -thresholds to account for continuing technology developments.
    • 5p2: Decontrol Note for OAM products
    • 5p2: Clarification of controls, to eliminate or replace the term “specially designed”

 

  • Wassenaar Proposal for 4A3 Deletion: Henry Brandt returned with an industry proposal to delete 4A3 and correspondingly 4D1, 4D2 and 4E1b (although retaining control on 4A1 extreme temperature and rad-hard computers). The essential rationale is that the usual bases for control (Wassenaar criteria for inclusion on the dual-use list) no longer apply. Key points were:
    • Nearly all HPCs are now massively parallel designs, and clusters are the dominant HPC system configuration (the sole exception being NEC, which continues to produce some vector supercomputers).
    • An analogy for HPC can be made to drag bikes (number of engines in the drag bike to number of processors in the supercomputer): both are fast, largely hand-built, have relatively few people involved from end-to-end, and have a small customer set.
    • Modern HPCs are comprised of the following: 1) Processors, which are effectively decontrolled from Cat 3; 2) Memory, which is effectively decontrolled from Cat 3; 3) Interconnects, for which proprietary designs are fading away and instead standards are dominating, and additionally the functionality is moving inboard to the microprocessor; 4) Storage, which is effectively decontrolled from Cat 4; 5) Advanced packaging, cooling and power management, all of which are effectively decontrolled; and 6) software, for which operating systems, tools, middleware and most applications are decontrolled (although the national security applications of concern are controlled separately and, in any case, are not dual-use).
    • The factor that makes an HPC controlled is the interconnect.  Controls apply to computers having APP > 3 WT, but the vast majority of HPC are clusters having standard (decontrolled) interconnects. Thus, controls apply only to the small (and diminishing) number of HPC that have proprietary interconnects: Proprietary Interconnects are the basis for export controls on HPC, all other items have been decontrolled. In the drag-bike analogy, the interconnects are the drive belts.
    • But the technology trends for interconnects are such that they are becoming increasingly rare and that they are also being moved into the microprocessor die. That is, Cat 4 interconnection is becoming an invisible technology buried inside Cat 3 microprocessors.
    • Jack Edwards asked what are the implications of interconnection moving onto the microprocessor die. Henry elaborated that the HPC industry just becomes system integrators; they have already stopped designing special microprocessors (RISC, etc.).
    • Interconnect no longer provides the bright line differentiation that it once did. The performance gap between proprietary and commercial interconnect is steadily decreasing. The TOP500 illustrates that Linpack efficiencies are comparable between systems with proprietary and commercial interconnects.
    • In actual practice, all major application spaces (e.g., seismic, fluid dynamics, crash simulation, financial services, life sciences, government laboratories) have migrated from vector to RISC constellation and finally to X86 massively-parallel clusters. Even the weather/climate applications, which had been thought to be extremely difficult to migrate to clusters, are now beginning that migration.
    • The conclusion is that the 4A3 controls on HPC are no longer justified. A shrinking number of products are subject to controls. Equivalent products (decontrolled clusters) now dominate the marketplace. The feature responsible for differentiating controlled products (i.e., interconnects) is becoming insufficient for this purpose. The case for hardware performance as a proxy for military utility is obsolete. Thus, controls on digital computers should be eliminated as they have already been eliminated on nearly all the components/assemblies required to create a digital computer.
    • Finally, a supplemental comment on Cloud Computing: the ISTAC should monitor public-cloud computing for HPC. Currently, such capabilities are limited to “embarrassingly parallel” applications, but we can expect to see increased emphasis in this area.
    • Actions: The Cat 4 Working Group will discuss this proposal with BIS.

 

  • Trade in Security Exploits:  Christopher Soghoian of the American Civil Liberties Union spoke on the implication and issues of trade in “zero-day” exploits (i.e., security vulnerabilities that have not been disclosed publicly). The essence of the issue is that 1) the concept of “zero-day” exploits is not widely understood by that general public community of computer users; 2) trade in “zero-day” exploits is currently unregulated; and 3) there are multiple and competing interests and equities in the matter.
    • The underlying technical issue is that computer malware (viruses and the like) have two parts: a payload and a transmission vector (vulnerability). The underlying policy issue is handling of vulnerabilities once they are discovered.
    • Among the interest and equities that may affect the underlying policy are: 1) Publicizing of vulnerabilities quickly and widely, so that affected users may take steps to protect themselves and simultaneously to provide strong incentive to manufacturers to issue the necessary security patches. 2) Provision of compensation to the discoverers of vulnerabilities and the questions of what is appropriate compensation and who should pay it. 3) Purchase of vulnerabilities by governments for use in cyber-attacks against adversaries.
    • Regulation of trade in “zero-day” poses challenges, simply in determining an appropriate mechanism. Export control seems unlikely to be effective. At this stage, reporting for the purpose of informing policy-makers about the scope and nature of the market might be sufficient.
    • The ACLU currently has no official position on the matter of “zero-day” exploits.
    • Because this presentation was informational, no specific follow-up actions were needed. However, this presentation may help inform the ISTAC’s discussions of possible future Wassenaar proposals seeking to implement new controls on “cybertools” as well as any regulatory proposals to amend Section 740.17(b)(2)(i)(F) of the EAR.

 

  • The open session was adjourned at 2:00pm.

Material Technical Advisory Committee
(MTAC)

Committee Title: MTAC meeting
Date: August 9, 2012
Time: 10:00 AM
Location: Herbert C. Hoover Building

Attendance:

Material TAC Members:

Tom May, Chairman - Boeing
Kimberly Orr, Designated Federal Officer – DoC/BIS
Gillian Woollett* – Avalere Health
Peter Witting – Harper International
Clara Zahradnik – DuPont
Judith Johnson* – Toho Tenax
Anthony Lubiniecki* - Centocour
David Manger – Toray Composites America

US Government:

Kevin Wolf - Assistant Secretary for Export Administration
Jody Lang – DoD/DTSA
Sean Harbottle – DTSA
Tracy O’Donnell - BIS
Elizabeth Sangine – BIS
Chris Park – DOS
Mike Rithmire - DOC

Public/Visitor:

Bill Root – Legal Consultant
Janelle Gamble – Boeing
Bruce Ruscio – Novartis
Aaron Guffery - NCITD
Annalyn Monson – Tyco International
Corey Norton – Keller and Heckman
Matt Beck – AT&T
Amy Chen – Argosy International
Dan Sherwin – Eastman
Mark Sagrans - DuPont

The meeting was opened at 10:00 AM

Commerce Address – Assistant Secretary for Export Administration -  Kevin Wolf

The Assistant Secretary reported that many good comments have been received addressing the proposed rules for the definition of “specially designed” and the “Transition Rule”.  Commerce is still digesting the comments and continues to strive for the proper balance between control text complexity and potential over-coverage.   BIS is finding there was a broad range of interpretations of “specially designed” under the existing text – some interpretations were liberal enough that adopting criteria based on part or component “uniqueness” would still result in a control rollback.

Looking forward, BIS is working to identify key areas of concern to industry which have not yet been positively impacted by recent initiatives.  Encryption controls is the area of greatest industry concern.  There is a need to significantly clarify the encryption controls as they are currently the source for considerable confusion.  Another area of interest is in deemed exports.  Reforms in the deemed export area could be quite challenging as some factions are taking strongly opposing positions.  It is believed resolution of the deemed export regulations would consume considerable time and human effort. 

Category XI of the USML has been completed and is in the USG approval cycle.  AS Wolf was not sure when the PR for XI would be posted. 

Other key priorities for Commerce include:

  • Simplification
  • Intra Company Transfer
  • Rationalized conditions for licensing
  • Requirement for markings on NLR items
  • Restructure of the country list
  • Definition of “Art”
  • Updating the LVS thresholds
  • AVS cleanup
  • Expansion of LVS to CIV items

BWC Activities – Mr. Christopher Park, DOS Office of Biological Policy

Mr. Park opened with a brief history of the Biological Weapons Convention as follows:

  • The BWC entered into force in 1975
  • The convention prohibits the development of biological weapons
  • The original focus of the convention was on state-sponsored development of WMDs
  • The focus is now moving to address smaller scale production
  • Discussions addressing verification protocol stalled in 1990’s

Mr. Park reported on the most recent Review Conference.  The US objective for the conference was to address development of weapons by “non-state actors”.  The conference focus was in the following areas:

  • Strengthening of national implementation
  • Approaches to increase transparency
    • Confidence Building Measures
    • Voluntary actions
  • Scientific Advancements
    • Synthetic toxins
    • Gene synthesis / order screening
    • Governance / conduct / awareness
  • Preparedness / Response
    • Prevention and detection
    • Surge capacity for vaccine production
    • Legal issues associated with outbreak response (FDA approval)

Budget constraints are limiting discussion time and are impacting progress of the group.  There has been some talk of moving discussion off-line to enable continued progress on the issues.   Mr. Park reported the State Department and the Implementation Support Unit of the BWC will continue to reach out to industry to obtain their perspectives on the issues faced by the Convention.   Invitations have been made to industry associations and entities outside of those represented on the MTAC have been engaged.  It was further reported, with respect to ISU activities within the US, that the US Department of State is not always involved by the ISU when entities within the US are engaged. 

It was reported the Schedule 1 listing of the CWC includes some bio-toxins and may overlap other control regimes.  The overlap was considered to be preferred to possible gaps.  However, jurisdictional confusion is the result and folks are questioning if a single listing should be established to simplify compliance.

The US volunteered to host a visit to Ft. Detrick and the visitors consisted mostly of ambassadors from States Parties.  The visitors received a briefing on US biodefense programs and a facility tour.  The objective was to “demystify” US activities, particularly at Ft. Detrick, and the visit was perceived to be a success.

There is a conference on health and security coming up in the fall.  The conference will address public health system capability and capacity to react to military threats.  The panel should include Commerce - Beth Scott-Sangine will follow-up.

Several members of the MTAC expressed concern regarding the content of a recent ISU presentation.  The MTAC members believed the pitch cast a negative light on biological research.  Further, the MTAC members believed the ISU may be overstepping its bounds by directly engaging US industry.  MTAC members were concerned US industry should be engaged through the DOS as opposed to interacting directly with the ISU.

Mr. Park indicated he agreed the State Department should be aware of the ISU/ US industry interactions and agreed to convey that to the ISU.  However, he did not see major issues associated with direct ISU engagement of US industry to augment inputs received from the MTAC.  It was pointed out the MTAC has no formal charter with respect to the BWC but that the MTAC is the only existing formal advisory body.  Dr. Park agreed to meet with members of the TAC off-line to further discuss the ramifications.

A further question was posed by the audience regarding the definition of a biological weapon.  Mr. Park reported there were ongoing efforts to establish the definition and pathogenicity, transmissibility, and environmental stability are candidate parameters to be used in the definition.   Category XIV of the USML is currently under rewrite and the audience was encouraged to review and comment on the proposed rule.

Sub Team Reports:

BWC Working Group: – Dr. Gillian Woollett

Dr. Woollett reiterated the BWC Working Group position that the Department of Commerce and the MTAC should be the interface between the DOS and industry for BWC issues. 

Chem. Processing Equipment Working Group – Mr. Eric McClafferty

Nothing new for open session

Activities of the Composite Working Group – Mr. Tom May

Several technical initiatives continue to be active:

  1. A proposal to amend 1C210 (2.C.7-NSG) to align it with the logic and limits of 1C010. The 1C210 proposal no longer contains language to change the carbon fiber limits and is now only addressing relief for glass fiber and the possible addition of a Tg threshold.
  2. A proposed summary of classifications to address export of scrap or recycled materials and parts. A table of classifications has been developed for materials and scrap parts throughout the material life cycle. A brief discussion was held regarding how the information might be used and we concluded an Advisory Opinion may be a viable approach.
  3. A review of controls on composite parts exerted by 9E003
  4. Sub team reviews of:
    • Composite equipment controlled by 1B001 / 101

Status Of Control Regime Activities:

Wassenaar Arrangement: Mr. Mike Rithmire

Several clarifications are moving ahead in the WA deliberations.  Inclusion of powered air devices in 1A004 has now been posted.  Further clarification is being made to help differentiate between soft and hard body armor. 

In the intersessional meeting this summer, there was talk of modernizing the 1C001 listing addressing radar absorbing materials.  Materials potentially picked up by the current listing are increasingly used in consumer electronics and other applications.  Tom offered the assistance of the CWG as some of these materials are of interest to CWG members. 

Mr. Rithmire indicated he was working on a proposal to establish better definitions of composite “tow” and “tape” material forms and is looking at the ramifications to coverage of equipment items described under 1B001 and 1B101.

Representatives from DuPont also expressed issues contained in the USML fragmentation note contained in the proposed rule for CAT XIII.  Mark Sagrans from DuPont will contact Mr. Rithmire for further discussion off-line.

Biological Weapons Convention: 

Nothing in addition to Mr. Park’s discussion.

MTCR:

No report for open session

Australia Group:  Dr. Kimberly Orr

Dr Orr reported on changes from the 2011 plenary which included the 1) dropping of Bartonella
Quintana and Rickettsia Riicketsii, 2) revisions to clarify the technical notes 1 and 4 of ECCN 1C353, 3) a new technical note to 2B350 clarifying items performing sealing functions do not impact the control status of the end item unless the seals are interchangeable, and 4) addition of converted values for lower limits to the control parameters of 2B350.i, and 5) add condenser control parameters of  liters / 24hours for steam sterilizable dryers addressed in 2B352.e.

The 2012 AG plenary was in June and the following changes were agreed:

  • Only race 3 biovar 2 of Ralstonia Solanacearum is controlled
  • The following plant fungi were added:
    • Tilletia indica
    • Thecophora Solani (potato smut)
  • The following human and animal pathogens were added:
    • Clostridium argentinese (formerly known as CI bot Type G)
    • Clostridium baratii, bont producing strains
    • Clostridium butyricum – bont producing strains
    • Clostridium perringens – epsilon toxin producing types
  • The E.Coli control was delineated to include   Shinga toxin producing E.Coli(STEC) of serogroups 026, 045, 0103, 0104, 0111, 0121, 0145, 0157, and other shinga toxin producing serogroups
  • There was a decrease in the staphylcoccus aureus  toxins controlled –   limited  to only enterotoxins, hemolysin alpha toxin, and toxic shock syndrome toxin (formerly staph enterotoxin F)
  • Spray dryers meeting the following thresholds were added:
    • Water evaporation capacity greater than .4kg/hour and less that 400 kg/hr
    • Ability to generate mean product particle size of less than 10 micrometers or easily adapted to do so
    • Capable of being sterilized or disinfected in-situ

Public Comments:

Mr. Bill Root suggested tools and dies listed under the proposed XIII (k) should be looked at as a potential candidate for movement to the CCL under the 600 series. 

Next Meeting:

Future MTAC meetings are currently scheduled as follows:

2012:

November 14

2013:

February 7
May 9
August 8
November 14
 


 

Material Technical Advisory Committee
(MTAC)

Committee Title: MTAC meeting
Date: August 9, 2012
Time: 10:00 AM
Location: Herbert C. Hoover Building

Attendance:

Material TAC Members:

Tom May, Chairman - Boeing
Kimberly Orr, Designated Federal Officer – DoC/BIS
Gillian Woollett* – Avalere Health
Peter Witting – Harper International
Clara Zahradnik – DuPont
Judith Johnson* – Toho Tenax
Anthony Lubiniecki* - Centocour
David Manger – Toray Composites America

US Government:

Kevin Wolf - Assistant Secretary for Export Administration
Jody Lang – DoD/DTSA
Sean Harbottle – DTSA
Tracy O’Donnell - BIS
Elizabeth Sangine – BIS
Chris Park – DOS
Mike Rithmire - DOC

Public/Visitor:

Bill Root – Legal Consultant
Janelle Gamble – Boeing
Bruce Ruscio – Novartis
Aaron Guffery - NCITD
Annalyn Monson – Tyco International
Corey Norton – Keller and Heckman
Matt Beck – AT&T
Amy Chen – Argosy International
Dan Sherwin – Eastman
Mark Sagrans - DuPont

The meeting was opened at 10:00 AM

Commerce Address – Assistant Secretary for Export Administration -  Kevin Wolf

The Assistant Secretary reported that many good comments have been received addressing the proposed rules for the definition of “specially designed” and the “Transition Rule”.  Commerce is still digesting the comments and continues to strive for the proper balance between control text complexity and potential over-coverage.   BIS is finding there was a broad range of interpretations of “specially designed” under the existing text – some interpretations were liberal enough that adopting criteria based on part or component “uniqueness” would still result in a control rollback.

Looking forward, BIS is working to identify key areas of concern to industry which have not yet been positively impacted by recent initiatives.  Encryption controls is the area of greatest industry concern.  There is a need to significantly clarify the encryption controls as they are currently the source for considerable confusion.  Another area of interest is in deemed exports.  Reforms in the deemed export area could be quite challenging as some factions are taking strongly opposing positions.  It is believed resolution of the deemed export regulations would consume considerable time and human effort. 

Category XI of the USML has been completed and is in the USG approval cycle.  AS Wolf was not sure when the PR for XI would be posted. 

Other key priorities for Commerce include:

  • Simplification
  • Intra Company Transfer
  • Rationalized conditions for licensing
  • Requirement for markings on NLR items
  • Restructure of the country list
  • Definition of “Art”
  • Updating the LVS thresholds
  • AVS cleanup
  • Expansion of LVS to CIV items

BWC Activities – Mr. Christopher Park, DOS Office of Biological Policy

Mr. Park opened with a brief history of the Biological Weapons Convention as follows:

  • The BWC entered into force in 1975
  • The convention prohibits the development of biological weapons
  • The original focus of the convention was on state-sponsored development of WMDs
  • The focus is now moving to address smaller scale production
  • Discussions addressing verification protocol stalled in 1990’s

Mr. Park reported on the most recent Review Conference.  The US objective for the conference was to address development of weapons by “non-state actors”.  The conference focus was in the following areas:

  • Strengthening of national implementation
  • Approaches to increase transparency
    • Confidence Building Measures
    • Voluntary actions
  • Scientific Advancements
    • Synthetic toxins
    • Gene synthesis / order screening
    • Governance / conduct / awareness
  • Preparedness / Response
    • Prevention and detection
    • Surge capacity for vaccine production
    • Legal issues associated with outbreak response (FDA approval)

Budget constraints are limiting discussion time and are impacting progress of the group.  There has been some talk of moving discussion off-line to enable continued progress on the issues.   Mr. Park reported the State Department and the Implementation Support Unit of the BWC will continue to reach out to industry to obtain their perspectives on the issues faced by the Convention.   Invitations have been made to industry associations and entities outside of those represented on the MTAC have been engaged.  It was further reported, with respect to ISU activities within the US, that the US Department of State is not always involved by the ISU when entities within the US are engaged. 

It was reported the Schedule 1 listing of the CWC includes some bio-toxins and may overlap other control regimes.  The overlap was considered to be preferred to possible gaps.  However, jurisdictional confusion is the result and folks are questioning if a single listing should be established to simplify compliance.

The US volunteered to host a visit to Ft. Detrick and the visitors consisted mostly of ambassadors from States Parties.  The visitors received a briefing on US biodefense programs and a facility tour.  The objective was to “demystify” US activities, particularly at Ft. Detrick, and the visit was perceived to be a success.

There is a conference on health and security coming up in the fall.  The conference will address public health system capability and capacity to react to military threats.  The panel should include Commerce - Beth Scott-Sangine will follow-up.

Several members of the MTAC expressed concern regarding the content of a recent ISU presentation.  The MTAC members believed the pitch cast a negative light on biological research.  Further, the MTAC members believed the ISU may be overstepping its bounds by directly engaging US industry.  MTAC members were concerned US industry should be engaged through the DOS as opposed to interacting directly with the ISU.

Mr. Park indicated he agreed the State Department should be aware of the ISU/ US industry interactions and agreed to convey that to the ISU.  However, he did not see major issues associated with direct ISU engagement of US industry to augment inputs received from the MTAC.  It was pointed out the MTAC has no formal charter with respect to the BWC but that the MTAC is the only existing formal advisory body.  Dr. Park agreed to meet with members of the TAC off-line to further discuss the ramifications.

A further question was posed by the audience regarding the definition of a biological weapon.  Mr. Park reported there were ongoing efforts to establish the definition and pathogenicity, transmissibility, and environmental stability are candidate parameters to be used in the definition.   Category XIV of the USML is currently under rewrite and the audience was encouraged to review and comment on the proposed rule.

Sub Team Reports:

BWC Working Group: – Dr. Gillian Woollett

Dr. Woollett reiterated the BWC Working Group position that the Department of Commerce and the MTAC should be the interface between the DOS and industry for BWC issues. 

Chem. Processing Equipment Working Group – Mr. Eric McClafferty

Nothing new for open session

Activities of the Composite Working Group – Mr. Tom May

Several technical initiatives continue to be active:

  1. A proposal to amend 1C210 (2.C.7-NSG) to align it with the logic and limits of 1C010. The 1C210 proposal no longer contains language to change the carbon fiber limits and is now only addressing relief for glass fiber and the possible addition of a Tg threshold.
  2. A proposed summary of classifications to address export of scrap or recycled materials and parts. A table of classifications has been developed for materials and scrap parts throughout the material life cycle. A brief discussion was held regarding how the information might be used and we concluded an Advisory Opinion may be a viable approach.
  3. A review of controls on composite parts exerted by 9E003
  4. Sub team reviews of:
    • Composite equipment controlled by 1B001 / 101

Status Of Control Regime Activities:

Wassenaar Arrangement: Mr. Mike Rithmire

Several clarifications are moving ahead in the WA deliberations.  Inclusion of powered air devices in 1A004 has now been posted.  Further clarification is being made to help differentiate between soft and hard body armor. 

In the intersessional meeting this summer, there was talk of modernizing the 1C001 listing addressing radar absorbing materials.  Materials potentially picked up by the current listing are increasingly used in consumer electronics and other applications.  Tom offered the assistance of the CWG as some of these materials are of interest to CWG members. 

Mr. Rithmire indicated he was working on a proposal to establish better definitions of composite “tow” and “tape” material forms and is looking at the ramifications to coverage of equipment items described under 1B001 and 1B101.

Representatives from DuPont also expressed issues contained in the USML fragmentation note contained in the proposed rule for CAT XIII.  Mark Sagrans from DuPont will contact Mr. Rithmire for further discussion off-line.

Biological Weapons Convention: 

Nothing in addition to Mr. Park’s discussion.

MTCR:

No report for open session

Australia Group:  Dr. Kimberly Orr

Dr Orr reported on changes from the 2011 plenary which included the 1) dropping of Bartonella
Quintana and Rickettsia Riicketsii, 2) revisions to clarify the technical notes 1 and 4 of ECCN 1C353, 3) a new technical note to 2B350 clarifying items performing sealing functions do not impact the control status of the end item unless the seals are interchangeable, and 4) addition of converted values for lower limits to the control parameters of 2B350.i, and 5) add condenser control parameters of  liters / 24hours for steam sterilizable dryers addressed in 2B352.e.

The 2012 AG plenary was in June and the following changes were agreed:

  • Only race 3 biovar 2 of Ralstonia Solanacearum is controlled
  • The following plant fungi were added:
    • Tilletia indica
    • Thecophora Solani (potato smut)
  • The following human and animal pathogens were added:
    • Clostridium argentinese (formerly known as CI bot Type G)
    • Clostridium baratii, bont producing strains
    • Clostridium butyricum – bont producing strains
    • Clostridium perringens – epsilon toxin producing types
  • The E.Coli control was delineated to include   Shinga toxin producing E.Coli(STEC) of serogroups 026, 045, 0103, 0104, 0111, 0121, 0145, 0157, and other shinga toxin producing serogroups
  • There was a decrease in the staphylcoccus aureus  toxins controlled –   limited  to only enterotoxins, hemolysin alpha toxin, and toxic shock syndrome toxin (formerly staph enterotoxin F)
  • Spray dryers meeting the following thresholds were added:
    • Water evaporation capacity greater than .4kg/hour and less that 400 kg/hr
    • Ability to generate mean product particle size of less than 10 micrometers or easily adapted to do so
    • Capable of being sterilized or disinfected in-situ

Public Comments:

Mr. Bill Root suggested tools and dies listed under the proposed XIII (k) should be looked at as a potential candidate for movement to the CCL under the 600 series. 

Next Meeting:

Future MTAC meetings are currently scheduled as follows:

2012:

November 14

2013:

February 7
May 9
August 8
November 14
 


 

 

Material Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)

Committee Title: MTAC meeting Date:
February 7, 2013
Time: 10:00 AM
Location: Herbert C. Hoover Building

Attendance:
Material TAC Members:

 

Tom May, Chairman - Boeing
Kimberly Orr, Designated Federal Officer – DoC/BIS
Gillian Woollett – Avalere Health
Clara Zahradnik – DuPont
David Manger – Toray Composites America
Bruce Ruscio – Novartis
Scott Hubinger – BIS
Doug Brown - BIS
Judith Johnson* – Toho Tenax
Carol Sabourin* – Battelle
Eric McClafferty* – Kelly Drye
John Grabenstein* – Merck Vaccines

US Government:

Kevin Wolf - Assistant Secretary for Export Administration
Tracy O’Donnell - BIS
Laura Barmby – DoC US&FCS

Public/Visitor:

Mark Sagrens - DuPont
Bill Root – Legal Consultant
Matt Beck* – ATMI
Charles McCourt* – Dow Chemical
Corey Norton* – Keller and Heckman
Meredith Gilston – The Export Practitioner
Kate Reasoner* – Dow Chemical Co.
Cynthia Roberts* – SABIC
Carol Nordstrom* - Boeing

*  indicates attendance via teleconference
The meeting was opened at 10:00 AM

Commerce Address – Assistant Secretary for Export Administration -  Kevin Wolf

The Assistant Secretary reported BIS is working on all USML categories.  There were many comments received addressing the Category XI proposed rule and BIS is working on those now.  Out for review is the proposed rule for Category IV which addresses missile controls.  The proposed rules will incorporate into the USML and the CCL items which were previously included in the MTCR appendix to the USML.  Categories XII and XIV are still in work and they will be followed by proposed rules for VII and XIII.   Work is progressing on Category XV which addresses controls on satellites.  The proposed rule will reflect recommendations made in a report sanctioned by the DoD which indicated unilateral controls on domestic satellite items were negatively impacting the US defense industrial base.  The report contained proposed revisions to the listing and those will be rolled into the proposed rule for Category XV.

Technical Working Groups:

Composites Working Group: Tom May

The CWG is currently finishing up on the recycling and 9E003 initiatives.  The recycling initiative is focused on creating a common understanding as to how classifications should be applied to composite materials and parts throughout the material life cycle.  The paper will aid in determining what classifications should be applied to rejected materials, rejected parts, by-products of manufacturing processes, and products at the end of their design life. The 9E003 proposal will address overlaps between the coverage of 9E003 for polymeric matrix composite parts for turbine engine applications and 1E001 which addresses technology for the development and production of parts made from high temperature materials listed in 1A002. 

The CWG is currently brainstorming potential new initiatives for the coming year.  The list includes:

  • Clarifying the coverage of 1A002 and the associated technology control exerted by 1E001
  • Determine the status of  tooling for automated lay-up of composite parts covered by 1A002  relative to the definitions for “accessories and attachments” in 1B001
  • Address possible disconnects between the thresholds for numbers of NC control axes between 1B001 and 1B101.
  • Address the interpretation of the term “for” when used to describe items and not preceded by “specially designed”.
  • Removing references to ITAR control listings in 1C101 and other ECCNs because similar references could be added to almost any ECCN in the CCL.

 

There were no reports in open session from either the Bio Working Group or the Chemical Processing Equipment Working Group. 

Assistant Secretary Wolf asked if members of the Bio Working group were tied into activities relating to the domestic select agent rules.  Members of the Bio Working Group indicated the MTAC is the only advisory group addressing this subject and that some members of the MTAC participate in CDC select agent rule making.   Dr. Orr indicated she is frequently in contact with her counterparts within the CDC. 

Special Presentation - Updates to Country Chart Due to New AG Membership:  Mark Sagrens, Clara Zahradnick - DuPont

DuPont pointed out that Mexico is currently applying for membership in the Australia Group.   Mexico was admitted to the Wassenaar Arrangement last year but the country chart has not yet been updated.  DuPont is concerned there may be a similar delay in the amendment of the country charts reflecting Mexico’s status as an AG member country.  Such a delay could result in potential lost sales for DuPont.  Companies in Mexico are current customers for commodity products produced by DuPont and other companies including those who do not participate in the Wassenaar Arrangement.  Although licensing is relatively easy for these commodities, DuPont is concerned that domestic sales may be impacted if other companies can react to market demand even slightly faster.  DuPont requested rapid update of the country chart if Mexico is admitted.   

Composite Materials Production: Dave Manger – Toray Composites America

Dave provided background information on the production of carbon fiber starting with Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) fiber.  Dave described the oxidation and carbonization processing for the fibers and showed where the fiber treatment and sizing operations occur.  In addition to the fiber processing, Dave described the typical resin impregnation process in which the resin is deposited as a film onto a carrier material.  The fiber is then pressed into the heated film using nip rollers and then wound onto spools to be subsequently frozen and shipped to the customers. 

Non-Proliferation Regimes:  Doug Brown (Treaty Compliance Division)

Chemical Weapons Convention:

The US will host the 7th and 8th inspections of 2013.

The executive council will meet in 2 weeks and will address:

  • Concentration thresholds,
  • Inadvertent chemical by-products
  •  Convergence of chemistry and biology. 
    • The US will not support putting bio-production on the inspection list
  • Safety and security of chemicals
    • Thwart usage by terrorists
    • US fully supportive
    • There is a concern the OPCW may add security criteria to inspections
  • New product codes (old product codes are still in effect)
  • Education

 

Biological Weapons Conference:

No implementation measures are currently required of private companies to support the BWC.  The Conference does hold implementation of laws and regulations regarding biological weapons as a requirement and some states still have work to do in that arena.   States parties will be encouraged to implement control through regulations if they have not already done so.  

One of the recent topics within the BWC has been “dual use research of concern” which addresses private sector work potentially applicable to weapons development.  The diplomats will try to establish the scope of this upcoming discussion.  Right now the definition may be tied to the funding status of the activity.

Confidence Building Measures are due to be submitted in 6 weeks.  BIS will review the draft US submittal and will send information to listed companies for an accuracy review. 

It has been determined that all decisions will be made during review conferences.

Additional Protocols NSG

This group is developing a new recording system and the interagency has met to review requirements. 

The US declaration will be vetted by the interagency next week prior to going to Congress.

Public Comments:

Bill Root indicated two items of public comment.  He reiterated concerns relating to the continued proposed usage of the term “specially designed” in commerce control listings.  Bill also surfaced a potential loophole in the materials coverage proposed in the revised USML proposals.

 

Wassenaar Arrangement:  John Varesi

John discussed items that may be included in the 2013 WA deliberations.

  •  1B001 – provide better distinction between tow and tape feed materials for automated lay-up machines
  • 1C010 – align the carbon fiber control thresholds of .b and .e
  • 1C008 – establish a Tg control threshold in .a.3  at 300C and refine the specification of testing methods

Some changes to 1C006 and 1C009 are still being discussed also.

 

Next Meeting:

Future MTAC meetings are currently scheduled as follows:

2013:

May 9
August 8
November 14

 

Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC))
“Minutes of Meeting”

 

Committee Title: ETRAC meeting
Date: October 11, 2012
Time: 8:30 am
Location: Herbert C. Hoover Building

Members Present: W. Provine, R. Breault, C. Canizares, M. Flagg, J. Hamilton, G. Kramer, J. Hillmon,F. Raccah, P. Abshire, G. Burdock (by telephone), S. Dahms (by telephone), Co-Chair T. Tierney (by video-conferencing), S. Hall (Federal Designated Officer)

Members of the Public- 24 individuals, one member of the Press.


Meeting Room: 6087B- Herbert C. Hoover Building/U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Minutes:
Dr. Tierney, participating via video-conference from Los Alamos National Laboratory, welcomed those in attendance to the quarterly meeting of the ETRAC. He mentioned that the ETRAC, unlike other Technical Assistance Committees at the Dept. of Commerce, does not have a specific industry responsibility. It was noted that Dr. Flagg would not continue with the ETRAC in 2013 and Dr. Tierney mentioned that the ETRAC needs to have a Dept. of Defense representative.

Dr. Tierney was reelected by the membership to serve a co-chair of the ETRAC. Dr. Keel, the ETRAC committee co-chair has communicated to the Committee that he would no longer continue serving as committee co-chair. Dr. Flagg suggested to Dr. Tierney that he send to the membership information on the duties and responsibilities of the co-chair. Dr. Tierney agreed to do this. Dr. Flagg questioned on what are the expectations of the Committee by BIS and what are the deliverables. In response, Dr. Tierney discussed continuing the ‘impact” statement of export control that was started in the last fiscal year. Also he pointed out that BIS has a one page statement of what the ETRAC’s functions are. In addition, ETRAC members have provided information on technology impact on export control in the areas of cloud computing with recommendations if it needs regulation. Dr. Breault suggested publishing our recommendations.

Dr. Flagg asked if the composition of the ETRAC would include those with backgrounds in research or export controls. Dr. Claude Canizares would like BIS to provide a report card on ETRAC, especially in areas of improvement. Members discussed the future track of the Committee and Dr. Tierney suggested the development of a menu of what the ETRAC can do for BIS.

Dr. Tierney asked what data is being tracked by BIS, which is done by the Office of Technology Evaluation. For example

  • Number of licenses
  • Number approved
  • Number returned without action
  • Number of deemed licenses
  • License by country
  • Top ECCN license applications
  • Value of license- note for BIS the value of the product on the application does not necessarily mean that that amount was shipped.
  • Number of deemed exports by regime

He also would like Mr. Kritzer, Director of the Office of Exporter Services, to mention those industries that are target for foreign interests and this will be brought up at the December meeting of the ETRAC.

Dr. Fabien Raccah of the Dept. of Energy stated that typically emerging technologies  are 3 to 10 years away, emergent technologies are 6 months to 3 years in development and emerged technologies are now to 6 months away in development.

Bernard Kritzer, Director of the Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, was asked to speak on current developments in export control outreach and regulations. He provided the latest figures of deemed exports and mentioned that Universities are underrepresented in the total number of deemed license application. Mr. Kritzer stated that he sees the ETRAC as a unique vehicle to identify potential problems of technologies as they develop into areas that may have export control implications. He suggested that the ETRAC may wish to have cooperation in programs with the President’s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration.

Dr. M. Flagg suggested Mr. Steve Pellesser of the Dept. of Defense to speak at an upcoming ETRAC meeting.

Mr. John Varesi, Licensing Officer with the Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, spoke to the committee on recent developments with the Wassenaar Arrangements with respect to emerging technologies. Mr. Varesi has just returned from a review session with the Wassenaar Arrangement members on new products and technologies that may be export controlled. Mr. Varesi discussed the process of getting technology and goods on the export control lists. The committee was very interested in the “use” provisions and its definitions. Mr. Varesi stated that the ‘use’ rule change had major implications and such changes are not easy to get soon.  Changes to ‘use’ for Categories 7, 9 and 4 are going into the CCL. An example is 9D4. Mr. Varesi continued with saying that the Wassenaar Arrangement does not look at emerging technology as a whole, but it is considered when a specific application of that technology is developed. For example, nanotechnology is not on the Wassenaar Arrangement’s list, but if this technology is used for the development of a specific product whose functions would be on the list, then yes this technology would be on the list. The importance of the recommendations from committees like the ETRAC of product and technology that warrants control is very important. Mr. Varesi stated that the majority of such recommendations that are discussed at Wassenaar are from government-sponsored technical advisory committees. Dr. Tierney would like to see some of these recommendations put to the Wassenaar Arrangement.

Dr. Canizares stated the importance deemed exports have to the discussion on what appears on the Wassenaar List. Dr. Tierney, addressing this subject, mentioned that the ETRAC can recommend changes to deemed exports but it needs to state that fundamental research activity should be exempt from regulations.

Debate among the ETRAC members centered on issues that included if the ETRAC should be technical or policy focused, a definition of ‘fundamental research’, and a review of the Commerce Commodity List, especially 1D and 1E categories for relevancy. For example, is category 1E001 still necessary to apply for in a deemed export environment? There was concern that no one on the ETRAC has technical legal experience.

The following were comments from the public:

Dr. S. Evans- University of California, Berkley on suggestions for the role of the ETRAC

  • Is ETRAC dealing with export controls or emerging technology ?
  • Look at NSDD 189 and related definition of fundamental research
  • Have more public discourse
  • Put on the Technical Advisory Committee web site of the main BIS site (www.bis.doc.gov) the meeting minutes 30 days after the meeting.
  • Academic freedom vs. national security issue. Dr. Evans wrote a paper on this topic that appeared in Nirvana magazine. Dr. Evans will send a copy to S. Hall for dissemination to the members.

Dr. Evans also mentioned that it typically takes two years for a proposed item to be controlled and included into the Wassenaar List.

Conclusion of comments from the public.

Mr. Timothy Wood, Export Control Officer of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) spoke of the emerging technology projects of the agency. DARPA also does developmental work with Australian, United Kingdom and Canadian organizations. Current projects involve space-related technology called the Phoenix Program, stealth and medical technologies. Dr. Abshire asked if there was a clear division line between what DARPA projects need a license and those that do not. She also asked if most of the non-government work on these projects are universities or other organizations. Mr. Wood responded that almost all the contractors are private companies.

Dr. Breault mentioned to Mr. Wood that other countries have major plans in developing the optic industry whereas the U.S. does not. DARPA needs to look at this industry.

Keven Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security spoke on issues relating to the Export Control Reform Initiative. The deemed export rule change is with the Strategic Trade Authorization and the 600 series and with government to government sales. Universities are not exempt from deemed export rule requirements. Mr. Wolf saw that the implementation of the Export Control Reform Initiative rather than policy formulation will be the priority in 2013. He stated that expectations from the ETRAC would include a clear mission statement and he will look to the ETRAC members to come up with a list of tasks he would review when the Committee meets in December.  He reiterated the importance of the Committee to think of why emerging technologies should or should not be controlled. For example, factors such as availability of the technology and can this technology be used to produce missiles, UAV’s or crime control equipment.  

Assistant Secretary Wolf encouraged the ETRAC members to provide a list of issues areas that the committee would want to address in 2013 and to present this to him at the next ETRAC meeting in Washington, Dec. 13, 2012 

Upon no further business, the Committee adjourned. The next meeting of the ETRAC is scheduled for December 12 (closed) and 13 (open).

 

   
US Dep_Of_Commerce  line   logo-no-beta line   facebook image   line   you tube_image  line   Twitter-icon
   
© BIS 2020