Material Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)
“Minutes of Meeting”


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


Material TAC Members:

Tom May, Chairman - Boeing
Kimberly Orr, Designated Federal Officer – DoC/BIS
Gillian Woollett – Avelere Health
Akhila Kosaraju – SIGA Technologies
Mark Scheckpeper – DuPont
Doug Brown – DOC/BIS
Ken Foot – Dow Corning
Peter Witting – Harper International
Eric McClafferty – Kelly Drye

US Government:

John Varesi – DOC/BIS
Beth Scott Sangine – DOC/BIS
Kevin Wolf - Assistant Secretary for Export Administration
Greg Tarr – State Department
Jessica Petrillo – State Department
Jennie Gromoll – State Department
Jody Lang – DoD/DTSA
Art Kron – DoD/DTSA
Sean Harbottle – DoD/DTSA


Bill Root – Legal Consultant
Clara Zahradnik – DuPont
Mark Sagrans – DuPont
Cyril Brennan – Boeing
Kay Morrell – KBR
Janelle Gamble – Boeing
Bruce Ruscio - Novartis

The meeting was opened at 10:00 AM

Commerce Address – Assistant Secretary for Export Administration -  Kevin Wolf

The Assistant Secretary reported that good comments are being returned on the various proposed rules.  There is now an unprecedented level of industry involvement in the export change process.  Agreement has been reached between Commerce, State, and Defense on most categories and what remains for those categories is the review by other agencies requested by the Office of Management and Budget.

Relative to comments received, there have been some inadvertent consequences identified relating to the .y sections of the 600 series ECCNS – those are currently being worked.  Also, efforts are being made to align di minimus thresholds.  It is clear that industry is interested in maintaining the continuity of existing ITAR exceptions and Commerce shares that interest.  Existing exceptions from the USML will be carried into the 600 series items.

Commerce is awaiting interagency comments to the new draft of “specially designed” and it is not clear at this point when the new definition will be available for review. 

Commerce has received general comments on improvements to the CCL.  Many of the comments received require changes at the regime level, however, there were many comments that did meet the objective of the inquiry including those addressing definitions and harmonization of exceptions.

In a recent congressional panel discussion, there was recognition of the link between healthy commerce and national security interests.   This was reflected in a specific discussion for commercial satellites currently controlled under the ITAR.  A new ECCN 9A515 is proposed to cover commercial satellite products as well as parts and components.  A new legislative bill may allow authority for Commerce control of commercial satellites.  The US once held 75 percent of the commercial satellite market but that number how now diminished to 20%. 

AS Wolf also shared some relevant statistics as follows:

  • Commerce dealt with 15% more licenses than the previous year which marks a significant increase in license volume.  This was attributed to increased awareness and greater compliance.
  • State Department licensing held at similar levels to the previous year
  • For Commerce-controlled items, exports requiring licenses amounted to .1% of exports.
  • State Department licensing amounted to 7.2% of exports by value.
  • It is estimated that 3.4% of exports were made under Commerce exceptions.
  • Night vision exports are significantly down.
  • Semiconductor exports are up – presumably due to the rapid expansion of application of integrated circuits into all manner of consumer products.

The proposed rule for category 10 is in interagency review along with PRs for categories 1, 2, and 3. 

Commerce is not observing much usage yet of the STA exception although it has been applied to the export of optical gun sights to Finland. 

A question was asked regarding the migration of XIII.f – controlled materials to the Commerce control list.  AS Wolf indicated the types of items remaining on the USML would be classified materials.  Other materials “specially designed” for defense products will appear in appropriate categories of the CCL

The US Government is abiding by the Export Control Act by maintaining control of defense items but allowing more flexibility in the administration of exports by controlling some of those defense items on the Commerce list.   Our current focus on the reform of the ITAR listing is due to constraints imposed by regime agreements on Commerce-controlled items.

BWC Review Conference:  Jennie Gromoll, Jessica Petrillo

Jennie opened by indicating the support for the BWC at very high levels of the administration.  The White House is very engaged in development of policy relating to disease surveillance, dual use items, and bioterrorism.

The BWC review conference takes place every 5 years and the most recent was in Dec. of 2011.   In this year’s conference, there was very positive and productive discussion in the Expert Group sessions.

The BWC was established in 1975 and is built around a simple agreement containing broad prohibitions on development and production of biological or bio-toxin weapons.  The United States is a Depositary to the Conference.  The BWC does not have a control listing, rather the Convention addresses a general prohibition of the development or production of biological weapons. A control listing is considered by States Parties to be too easy to circumvent by modifying organisms that are not on the list.

The US Government is very pleased with progress at the Rev Con meeting.  The US pushed hard for open meetings allowing the participation of NGOs, IGOs, and even private citizens.  The rules allow for any Government to request closed sessions but no Parties requested closure of any sessions.  500 people attended the conference last year and many international associations were present for discussion.  Also active, is the interaction between the BWC and the World Health Organization especially on the bio-security side (smallpox).

A very encouraging trend emerging in this review was the active participation of non-traditional countries working cooperatively and constructively on the negotiations in a non-political manner.  Those countries included Malaysia, Mexico, and Brazil.

10 years ago, the US pulled out of verification protocol discussions and adopted internal processes to assure compliance.   Some parties to the treaties are still suspicious of current US Activities specifically at Ft. Detrich, however, it is also recognized that facility would be able to provide valuable assistance in an emergent situation.   There is a general trend toward the awareness of the benefit to world health derived from the presence and ability of bio-defense facilities.   To counter skepticism, the US will host a unilateral forum in September on our bio-defense program.  Other countries, specifically Russia and China are not so open.   India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and Iran have take up the call for development of new protocol. This is perceived by the US to be politically motivated as those countries know that calls for protocol will not be productive.  The incentive for those countries to again raise the protocol issue is to gain access to some important side meetings between influential parties.

The US advocated, and the Conference adopted, the following three areas of focus for the next 5 years:

  • Strengthen national implementation of the BWC agreement
  • Systematic reviews of scientific and technological developments
  • Increasing capacity for bio-security and safety, preparedness, response, and crisis management including international assistance

The Conference is taking a close look at the confidence building measures and is striving to achieve a broader level of participation in the CBMs.  How, exactly, to make that happen has not been decided so this will be a topic of discussion for the next few years.   The consensus is: participation in the CBMs will grow in proportion to the utility and completeness of the CBM information.  The US reviews the CBM submittals but few other countries use the information at all.  The US is still establishing our policy on the CBMs and we are reviewing our forms now.   It is recognized the vaccine forms need close review – historical relative threat levels stemming from vaccine company production capacity may be reducing due to technology advancements.   The Conference is reviewing the annual Confidence Building forms and is striving to make those forms more consistent and useful.  The US is looking at an electronic approach for CBM data submittal. 

Regarding administration of the Conference, the staffing of the conference was not increased and the meeting time available for discussions is decreasing.  To remain productive with fewer resources, the parties will carry on dialogue throughout the year and use the BWC meetings for statusing of initiatives.

In General, the energy level of the conference is at a high.  US industry members were invited by State to participate directly.  

Status Of control Regime Activities:

Wassenaar Arrangement – Mr. John Varesi

In the WA Plenary meeting in December, all Expert Group-recommended changes agreed in 2011 were adopted.  Changes relevant to the MTAC were made in the following areas:

  • Respirators
  • Body Armor
  • High temperature organic resin materials (1.C.8.a.4, and .f)

Proposals in discussion for this year include:

  • Additional definitions for “Tape” and “Tow”
  • Clarification of test procedures for Glass transition temperature of aromatic polyimides.

Some Composite Working Group members have already been engaged on these subjects.  DTSA is currently looking at potential changes to the proposals.

Treaty Compliance: Dr. Doug Brown

Chemical Weapons Convention: 

Two inquiries to industry have been made:

  1. Do we know of any “captive use” of schedule 1 chemicals cases?
  2. Do we know of any use of schedule 1 chemical salts?

The industry response indicated no captive use cases and only one instance of use of a schedule 1 chemical salt (Pharma industry).  Commerce is now well prepared to continue discussions on these subjects.

Also on the agenda of the CWC is the convergence of bio and chemical threats.  The convention is concerned that jurisdictional lines between the chemical and biological treaties are being blurred and are soliciting participation in the discussion by interested parties. 

The CWC Review Conference will take place in April of 2013.  With destruction of all existing chemical weapon stockpiles now reaching a conclusion,  attention of the Conference may turn to chemical production (hence the need for the industry information above).

Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has represented the interests of US industry by resisting initiatives aimed at gaining access to US facilities through transparency visits.

Sub Team Activity Status

BWC Working Group – Dr Gillian Woollett

Discussion in closed session

Chem. Processing Equipment Working Group – Mr. Eric McClafferty

Discussion in closed session

Activities of the Composite Working Group – Mr. Tom May

Several technical initiatives are active right now:

  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. 
  3. A review of controls on composite parts exerted by 9E003
  4. Sub team reviews of:
    • Availability of BMI resins
    • Composite equipment controlled by 1B001 / 101

Public Comments:

There were no public comments.

Next Meeting:

Meeting times are being fixed for the TAC conference room well into the future, the MTAC decided on the following meeting times in addition to those already established for 2012. 


May 17
August 9
November 14


February 7
May 9
August 8
November 14

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