Where Industry and Security Intersect
What's New | Sitemap | Search
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Howard Pfeifer at 9:30am with welcoming remarks.
Introduction of persons present was made around the room.
TransTAC members in attendance: (Industry) Mr. Bill Kennedy, Mr. Michael Osborne, Mr. Howard Pfeifer (TransTAC Chair) and Mr. Donald Stevenson; (Government) Mr. Gene Christiansen, Mr. Anthony Lombardi, Mr. Paul Sellers and Ms. Yvette Springer.
Others present: The complete list of attendees is attached at the end of these minutes.
Opening remarks
Mr. Matt Borman and Mr. Bernie Kritzer started discussion by welcoming everyone to the TransTAC.
TransTAC members and other interested persons are thanked for participation in the TransTAC.
Strategy for review of ECCNs in Category’s 7, 8 and 9 was discussed. BIS would like feedback about scope, timing, resources required, assistance to be requested from BIS, and whatever else is required or planned for review of ECCNs.
Discussion on the proposed China “catch-all” rule (71 FR 38313 and 71 FR 61692 ) and request for information about dual-use items intended for a military end use in China and that are controlled in the 47 ECCNs listed in the Federal Register notice.
There has been a general increase in the volume of license applications and applications submissions have been high quality in the information provided. The largest increase has been in deemed export applications from a few to about 1000 since 2002. There has also been an increase of about 45% in CCATS requests.
Review of Category 7, 8 and 9 ECCNs
Discussion on how to assign and prioritize review of ECCNs within TransTAC purview for current items on the CCL for out of date nomenclature or obsolete controls. A suggestion was made to make a list of all ECCNs in the three Categories, assign priorities and identify a central person to coordinate the review. BIS provided a list of ECCNs under the purview of the TransTAC with indication of numbers of license applications received to assist prioritizing ECCNs for review.
Volunteers were requested to manage each Category for the ECCN reviews:
Category 7 – Navigation and Avionics
Mr. Mike Osborne (Honeywell), Mr. Don Stevenson (Honeywell) and Mr. Mike Gries (Rockwell Collins) will co-chair a Working Group to prioritize which ECCNs to review first.
Category 8 – Marine
Ms. Kim DePew (GE) will chair a Working Group to establish if we have any expert industry participation for review of ECCNs in the marine applications.
Category 9 – Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment
Mr. Sam Yoon (GE), Mr. Bruce Hansen (Sikorsky) and Mr. Bill Kennedy (Rolls-Royce) will co-chair a Working Group to prioritize which ECCNs to review first.
Introduction of the new Office of Technology Evaluation
Mr. Kevin Kurland, Director, introduced himself and started discussion on roles and responsibilities for this new office with BIS. The Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) is a consolidation of some old and some new BIS programs recently set up in August. The OTE has overall responsibility for administration of the BIS Technical Advisory Committees, such as the TransTAC. The OTE has three statutory responsibilities upon petition from industry : (i) import investigations; (ii) foreign availability; and (iii) short supply. Additionally, there are two other key objectives: (i) help gauge the effectiveness of the export control system, and (ii) defense industrial base and other broader base technology assessments.
The effectiveness piece will be evaluated on how the entire export control system is being utilized by exporters. OTE will be evaluating items shipped under a license authority and items shipped under license exceptions to identify trends, whether they are being properly utilized and establish proliferation and economic competitiveness baselines to be used to focus outreach efforts. OTE will be looking at why items may not be shipping against an issued license such as are applications taking too long, did you lose the sale, are the limitations too onerous, etc. OTE will try to catalog costs. OTE would also like to know if there are any benefits to coming in and getting a license.
For technology assessments OTE will be reaching out to industry to identify where the U.S. has a comparative advantage and where and how export controls are impacting those areas. OTE will be looking at the current control parameters, foreign availability, how foreign countries and competitors are treating similar items, economic competitiveness, how can we make the export control system work better and how BIS can work with inter-agency colleagues to maintain U.S. competitiveness. OTE wants to get industry input. Two areas currently under study are (i) strategic microchips and (ii) satellites and the space industry. OTE is going to transition these studies to broader technology assessments, such as semiconductor manufacturing equipment technology.
OTE office is currently staffed at 10 persons.
Update on Regulatory Overview
Ms. Hillary Hess started discussion on Regulatory updates.
The comment period for the proposed China ‘catch-all’ rule for items that could contribute to the military capability of China has been extended to 04 December 2006 (71 FR 61692).
The TransTAC proposal from use of license exception TSU for technology exports to civil aviation authorities for support of aircraft incident investigations has been received and is currently being reviewed by BIS. The essential rationale for TSU is if you can legally export a commodity then you can export technology for use of that commodity by TSU so far as the use technology does not include development or production technology or MT controlled technology.
BIS is working on writing a statement of work for an economic impact study including a cost benefit analysis for a proposed rule that would require an export license for items controlled for MT reasons intended for export to Canada .
The TransTAC proposal requesting 9A101 lightweight aircraft engines controlled for MT reasons be added to EAR Part 740.2(a)(5) to permit them to be eligible for License Exceptions has been drafted and is currently being considered by BIS before inter-agency review.
Update on Missile Technology Control Regime
Mr. Dennis Krepp started discussion on MTCR issues.
Reiteration that the TransTAC 9A101 proposal is being considered.
There have been changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex 9.A.4 Technical Notes (CCL 7A102). The latest MTCR is available at www.mtcr.info but members are reminded that the MTCR as published in the ITAR is the law regardless that it may be out of date by 5 or 6 years.
The TransTAC is still asking if members will be permitted access to MTCR proposals, on the members only access website, for comment.
Update on Wassenaar Arrangement Proposals
Mr. Jim Thompson started discussion on Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) issues.
The Wassenaar Arrangement intends to compare notes with the Missile Technology Control Regime to try to use the same control language for items that both entities control. The Wassenaar Arrangement controls are available at www.wassenaar.org.
The proposals discussed as being of interest to the TransTAC:
Category 1: 1.A.2; 1.A.3; 1.B.1.f; 1.C.8; and 1.C.10 (2 places).
Category 5: added 5.A.1.g.
Category 6: 6.A.8.
Category 7: 7.A.1; 7.A.2; 7.A.8.
Category 8: 8.A.2.a; and 8.A.2.r.
Category 9: 9.A.2; 9.A.13; 9.D.4; 9.E.3.a.2; and ML9.B.4.
Everyone is reminded that proposals for consideration for Wassenaar in 2008 can be submitted anytime before September 2007. None Papers intended to start discussion about a particular topic may be submitted at any time, they may develop into a proposal in the future.
Jurisdictional Technical Working Group Status
Mr. Ken Tucker started discussion on the status of the Jurisdictional TWG.
The Jurisdictional TWG is recommending disbanding of the TWG. Industry has not been able to provide examples of economic impact due to jurisdictional issues. A document “Statement of Jurisdictional Issues & Recommendations” was provided to the TransTAC to start discussion of the status of the J-TWG.
The TransTAC discussed a more specific description of the activities of the J-TWG should be documented in a final closeout paper with specific recommendations for each issue. Also, a summary of each objective the J-TWG originally set out to accomplish with the results obtained or explanation why each was or was not obtained. Provide final documentation of any guidelines the J-TWG developed for what or how to quantify jurisdictional issues and specific difficulties encountered gathering factual data. Any recommendations on Rules of Engagement that could be recommended. [Action Item 11]. Mr. Mike Osborne will create a strawman paper describing what cost data are requested.
Composites Technical Working Group Status
Ms. Kim DePew started discussion on the status of the Composites TWG.
The Composites TWG meets by telephone conference every other week, has approximately 30 companies participating and has been organized in 4 working teams looking at and collecting data on various aspects of composite materials. Data collection includes manufacturing methods and sources including foreign availability, production of raw materials including fiber and resin materials, and foreign use. The teams are also reviewing potential impact from the proposed “ China catch-all” rule (71 FR 38313 and 71 FR 61692) for composite items that may be specifically listed in the Federal Register notices. The team is looking for additional participation to review non-destructive inspection equipment controlled by 1B001.f used for inspection of composite materials. The team recognizes that collecting data on availability is fundamental and is looking for new ideas on how to find and collect data. BIS may be able to check shipment of items through the AES system but likely will not be able to share that information with the team.
Discussions in the meetings include how to determine if an item is dual-use or a defense article and jurisdiction issues. One consideration is to use terminology in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) at 22 CFR 121.10.
TransTAC 2007 Goals and Other Items of Interest
A goal to expand industry membership. A request for additional membership applications is being maintained on an ongoing basis.
A goal for increased active support to multilateral control functions. A request for members to actively provide support to multilateral control reviews such as the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement is being maintained on an ongoing basis.
A goal to actively participate in review of current regulations. The members have committed to provide written comment and feedback through the TransTAC to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on items listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL), specifically Category’s 7, 8 or 9 is being maintained on an ongoing basis.
Open Action Items
Action 1: (November 2003) Mr. Gene Christiansen to review the proposed change to license exception “TSU” for disclosure of technical data to non-U.S. civil aviation authorities and NTSB type foreign organizations in support of flight incident investigations.
Update 9/21/04 : Mr. Osborne to provide additional refinements to proposal and identify which export license exception should be modified.
Update 12/8/04 : Mr. Osborne provided a proposed change to the license exception TSU. Mr. Christiansen has the action to review within BIS.
The proposal has been provided to Commerce Regulations Division and to DOD for comment.
Update 3/17/05 : Mr. Christiansen to continue review within BIS and other government agencies.
Update 5/18/05 : Mr. Christiansen to continue review within BIS and other government agencies.
Update 9/7/2005 : Mr. Osborne has provided information to Mr. Christiansen and has requested Gene review it internally in Commerce for consideration for inter-agency review. Mr. Osborne will also work with Ms. Julie Ann Felgar, Boeing to be sure that the proposal covers all applicable civil aircraft systems.
Update 11/09/2005 : A revised white paper, with further clarification, was presented by Mr. Osborne.
Update 02/09/2006 : Discussed the intent and clarification of the White Paper from last meeting. The discussion asked for lists of items typically requested in an investigation, and whether requests are for use technology or include development or production technology?
Update 05/03/2006 : The request for industry to provide lists of items typically requested in an investigation was reiterated.
Update 09/13/2006 : Mr. Osborne distributed a White Paper outlining a proposed change to the wording of License Exception TSU (ref: 15 CFR 740.13). Mike asked all TransTAC members to review the White paper for concurrence and a unified position to be forwarded to BIS. And reiteration of the request for industry to provide examples of items typically requiring an export license and requested during aircraft incident investigations.
Update 11/09/2006: BIS is reviewing the paper provided to BIS through Mr. Osborne outlining a proposed change to the wording of License Exception TSU (ref: 15 CFR 740.13).
Action 4 : (February 2004) TRANSTAC Team will validate whether the current multi-dome combustion controls are realistic or provide any changes that are required, for instance with respect to temperature vs. number of domes.
Update May 2004: This was provided in the handout. There is a follow up action to have other engine manufacturers not represented on the TRANSTAC review the proposal. (Mr. Christiansen).
Update September 2004: Mr. Pfeifer to coordinate putting the proposed changes into Wassenaar proposal format.
Update 3/17/05 : Still open
Update 5/18/05 : Pending TransTAC member input.
Update 9/7/2005 : Still pending TransTAC member input. Also, want to request input from Mr. Brostmeyer and Ms. DePew.
Update 11/09/2005 : Pending additional input and clarification from industry whether to revise current controls or impose new controls on multidomed combustors, multipoint fuel injection combustors and/or thermally decoupled combustors.
Update 02/09/2006 : GE provided a proposal for changes to 9E003.a.2. Proposal to make a combustor exit temperature change from 2800 F to 3000 F due to typical civil uses today. All other industry members need to provide comment.
Update 05/03/2006 : The request for industry to provide comment on the proposal for changing combustor exit temperature from 2800 F to 3000 F was reiterated.
Update 09/13/2006 : Industry is working to provide a consolidated position.
Update 11/09/2006 : Industry is working to provide a consolidated position.
Action 5 : (February 2004) TRANSTAC Team: Review 9E003.a.4 and 9E003.a.5 on whether temperature range is correct and whether this needs to be clarified with respect to hot spot, average or some other defined gas path or hardware temperature.
Update: This was provided in the handout at the May 2004 TRANSTAC meeting. There is a follow up action to solicit inputs from GE and other engine manufacturers (Mr. Christiansen).
Update September 2004: Mr. Pfeifer to coordinate putting the proposed changes into Wassenaar proposal format.
Update 3/17/05 : Still open.
Update 5/18/05 : Pending TransTAC member input.
Update 9/7/2005 : Still pending TransTAC member input. Also, requesting input from Mr. Brostmeyer and Ms. DePew.
Update 11/9/2005 : DTSA persons in attendance requested the TransTAC work on a clarification of what constitutes “hot section” in a turbine engine. Ms. DePew provided a proposed definition of “hot section” for TransTAC propulsion member review. Require further discussion of the proposal and definition of design point parameters between all major engine manufacturers.
Update 02/09/2006 : GE provided a revision of the proposal from the last meeting for changes to the definition of hot section parts in 9E003.a.4 and 9E003.a.5. Proposal would apply to aero, industrial, civil, defense and marine turbine engines. All other industry members need to provide comment.
Update 05/03/2006 : The request for industry to provide comment on the proposal for clarifying the definition of hot section parts was reiterated.
Update 09/13/2006 : Industry is working to provide a consolidated position based on General Electric’s proposed clarification of ‘Hot Section’.
Update 11/09/2006 : Industry is working to provide a consolidated position.
Action 10 (rewritten 3/17/05 ): Mr. Martling, Cessna, and Mr. Pfeifer: Report to TRANSTAC on any helicopter power transfer system issues and on whether the CCL (9E003.d) needs to change. Would like to know if there are differentiating features or capabilities between military and commercial use helicopter power transfer systems.
Update 5/18/05 : Pending TransTAC member input.
Update 9/7/2005 : Pending TransTAC member input.
Update 11/09/2005 : Pending TransTAC member input. Include DTSA in distribution.
Update 02/09/2006 : Are there differences in civil and defense helicopter power transfer systems? What are they? Still require input from helicopter manufacturers. Include Mr. Ed Auger in any input.
Update 05/03/2006 : Ms. Elaine Vaught, Bell Helicopter, agreed to review 9E003.d.
Update 09/13/2006 : Pending industry input.
Update 11/09/2006 : Mr. Bruce Hansen, Sikorsky, attended the TransTAC and agreed to assist reviewing technology controlled by 9E003.d.
Action 11 : For TRANSTAC membership: provide examples where US business interests have been negatively affected by jurisdictional issues between State and Commerce (December 2004)
Update 3/17/05 : This was discussed in committee. Boeing representatives noted new contract language containing considerable financial penalties for reduced utility of aircraft as a result of ITAR controls.
Update 5/18/05 : Pending TransTAC member input. The Jurisdictional TWG may add to this Item.
Update 9/7/2005 : The Jurisdictional TWG has picked up this action item. TransTAC members and Industry members are invited to provide examples to the TransTAC.
Update 11/09/2005 : This item transferred to the J-TWG. The J-TWG continues to request examples.
Update 02/09/2006 : The J-TWG is still requesting examples.
Update 05/03/2006 : The request for industry to provide examples of transactions that have been negatively affected by jurisdictional issues was reiterated.
Update 09/13/2006 : This is the same issue as above for the Jurisdictional TWG. Industry is re-encouraged to provide examples.
Update 11/09/2006 : Mr. Osborne to provide a summary of costs for quantifying jurisdictional impact for TransTAC consideration.
Action 12 : Mr. Stevenson of Honeywell to investigate foreign design capability for Fly By Wire (FBW) flight control.
Update 3/17/05 : White paper was presented to Committee. Closed.
Update 5/18/05 : Mr. Stevenson still working.
Update 9/7/2005 : Mr. Stevenson has submitted information to Commerce. The next step is to write a new proposal requesting decontrol based on foreign availability, Mr. Stevenson has offered to start the proposal.
Update 11/09/2005 : A white paper for the proposal was distributed. DOC to distribute white paper for interagency review.
Update 02/09/2006 : The white paper is currently queued for review in BIS and interagency. Any additional industry input is welcome.
Update 05/03/2006 : The BIS interagency review is continuing.
Update 09/13/2006 : The BIS interagency review is continuing.
Update 11/09/2006 : The BIS interagency review is continuing. BIS may develop the White paper into a non-paper for Wassenaar review.
Action 14 : Mr. Stevenson of Honeywell to investigate availability of Heads Up Displays and 3D Displays.
Update 11/09/2005 : Pending TransTAC member and industry input.
Update 02/09/2006 : Pending TransTAC member and industry input.
Update 05/03/2006 : Pending TransTAC member and industry input.
Update 09/13/2006 : Pending TransTAC member and industry input. Note the proposal for the TransTAC to review CCL items may accomplish the same end result.
Update 11/09/2006 : Pending TransTAC member and industry input, Mr. Stevenson to work with Rockwell Collins.
No new Action Items.
Next Meeting
The next TransTAC meeting, for the first calendar quarter of 2007, is set for 9:30 am Thursday February 7, 2006 at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The second calendar quarterly meeting for 2007 is tentatively scheduled Wednesday, May 2, 2007 .
TransTAC Members are reminded that meetings typically work through lunch and are trending toward four to five hours in length and should plan accordingly.
The meeting adjourned at 2:00pm.
November 09, 2006 TransTAC
NAME |
ORGANIZATION |
Howard M. Pfeifer TransTAC Industry Member, Chair |
Pratt & Whitney |
Michael Osborne TransTAC Industry Member |
Honeywell |
Donald Stevenson TransTAC Industry Member |
Honeywell |
Bill Kennedy TransTAC Industry Member |
Rolls-Royce North America |
Gene Christiansen TransTAC Designated Federal Official |
DOC / BIS |
Anthony Lombardi TransTAC Government Member |
OSD / DTSA |
Paul Sellers TransTAC Government Member |
IDA |
Yvette Springer TransTAC Government Liaison |
DOC / BIS |
Andrey Shabalin |
Russian Embassy |
Bernie Kritzer |
DOC / BIS |
Bill Root |
Consultant |
Bruce Hansen |
Sikorsky |
Dan Speyer |
OSD / DTSA |
Dan Squire |
DOC / BIS |
Dee Ruilova |
United Technologies Corporation |
Dennis Krepp |
DOC / BIS |
Hillary Hess |
DOC / BIS |
Jennifer Watts |
DOC / BIS |
Jim Thompson |
DOC / BIS |
Joe Brostmeyer |
Florida Turbine Technologies |
Kara Bombach |
Greenberg Traurig |
Ken Tucker |
Boeing |
Kenneth Hutton |
Hyperion Catalysis |
Kevin Kurland |
DOC / BIS |
Kim DePew |
GE Aircraft Engines |
Maggie O’Neill |
Rockwell Collins |
Matt Borman |
DOC / BIS |
Michael Gries |
Rockwell Collins |
Sam Gilston |
Washington Tariff & Trade Letter |
Sam Yoon |
GE Aircraft Engines |