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), Mr. Donald Stevenson and Mr. Todd Zarfos; (Government) Mr. Bob Anstead, Mr. Gene Christiansen, Mr. Anthony Lombardi and Ms. Yvette Springer.
Others present: The complete list of attendees is attached at the end of these minutes.
Opening remarks
Mr. Matt Borman started discussion by welcoming everyone to the TransTAC. TransTAC members and other interested persons are thanked for participation in the TransTAC.
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. BIS received about 60 responses for comments. The comments focused on three areas: foreign availability of items that would be captured in the 47 ECCNs listed in the Federal Register subject to the military end-use control; how to define ‘military end-use’; and comments on the Validated End User authorization. Proposed changes based on the comments will be circulated to other agencies for their review.
Feedback was requested from the TransTAC regarding the Export Administration Act article 17(c), how it relates to Commodity Jurisdiction (22 CFR 120.4) requests and Interpretations in Part 770 [see 770.2(i)] of the EAR.
Strategy for review of ECCNs in Category’s 7, 8 and 9 was discussed. BIS would like feedback about scope, timing, resources required or assistance to be requested from BIS, and whatever else is required or planned for review of ECCNs. If additional assistance from industry is needed, who are not members of the TransTAC, a Federal Register notice can be made soliciting participation at a TransTAC meeting. Teams will need to provide substantiation for leaving any ECCN as is, or for any proposed changes to the ECCN entry. Foreign availability of any item covered by a specific ECCN is valued information when supported by substantiation [see EAR Part 768 for description of information that establishes substantiation].
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 for inertial and non-inertial items.
Category 8 – Marine
Ms. Kim DePew (GE) will chair a Working Group for 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 for propulsion items.
Update on Regulatory Overview
Ms. Hillary Hess started discussion on Regulatory updates.
A new rule was published to conform to U.N. Security Council resolution 1718 for North Korea . All EAR99 items have a license requirement with a general policy of denial for luxury goods and general policy of approval for humanitarian items.
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 is expected to go for inter-agency review soon.
Use of License Exception TMP for Technical Data is almost ready for inter-agency review. TMP currently applies only to commodities and software.
Use of License Exception TSU for accident investigation support data is still being considered by BIS.
The proposed rule for MT controlled items requiring a license for export to Canada is still pending an economic impact study.
Update on Missile Technology Control Regime
Mr. Dennis Krepp started discussion on MTCR issues.
There is a MTCR proposal regarding vibration test systems and environmental chambers addressing a loophole in the current regulations where the two items combined require a license but when shipped separately and assembled at the destination do not.
The TransTAC is still asking if TAC members will be permitted access to MTCR proposals, on the TAC members-only-access website, for comment. This is similar to Wassenaar proposals that are posted on TAC websites.
The latest MTCR is available at www.mtcr.info but everyone is 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.
Update on Wassenaar Arrangement Proposals
Mr. Jim Thompson started discussion on Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) issues.
There are only a few current proposals including a cleanup of language in 9.E.1 and 9.E.2 for typographical errors, whether a decontrol note for 7.A.2 and 7.A.3 should be deleted thereby controlling mass spin gyros, and the potential for a new control for reciprocating engines for UAVs in 9.A.12.
BIS would like industry input on 9.E.3.a.4 and 9.E.3.a.5 controls, specifically how is gas temperature defined and determined as it relates to the Wassenaar controls [Note: this is the same control language in ECCNs 9E003.a.4 and 9E003.a.5].
Wassenaar member countries are discussing sharing of information on other countries who may be trying to access controlled technology with the intention to prevent or limit the erosion of a technological advantage.
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.
The Wassenaar Arrangement controls are available at www.wassenaar.org.
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 39 companies participating now and has been organized into teams. Data collection includes equipment, data, manufacturing methods and sources including foreign availability, production of raw materials including fiber and resin materials, and foreign use. The team recognizes that collecting data on availability is fundamental and is looking for ideas on how to find and collect data. A template is being developed to guide manufacturers on what information is being requested, it will be sent out the manufacturers for their review and input.
The teams are also reviewing USML items and their relation to BIS controlled items. Recommendations from the teams are expect to provide interpretive notes for existing controls.
A face-to-face meeting is expected to be scheduled for early May to review work accomplished so far.
Jurisdictional Technical Working Group Status
Mr. Todd Zarfos started discussion on the status of the Jurisdictional TWG.
The J-TWG focused on three aspects of interest: education; process improvement; and economics.
For education the J-TWG raised comprehension of the sensitivity and complexity of jurisdictional issues through supplier conferences held at Boeing and general awareness of participating companies. For process improvement the J-TWG provided insight into the process of determining jurisdiction with a follow-on effort by the Aerospace Industry Association [see AIA presentation summary in these meeting minutes]. For economics, the J-TWG was not able to provide examples, quantifiable numbers or anecdotal evidence of jurisdictional issues due to the sensitivity of company proprietary information.
Mr. Mike Osborne has provided a draft paper for finalizing the J-TWG describing a summary of recommendations for the three objectives outlined above. The paper includes documentation of any guidelines the J-TWG developed for what or how to quantify jurisdictional issues and specific difficulties encountered gathering factual data, recommendations on Rules of Engagement and an outline of cost data that had been requested to quantify jurisdictional issues.
The draft paper needs to be finalized for the next meeting of the TransTAC so the J-TWG may be formally closed.
Presentation from AIA
Mr. Remy Nathan from Aerospace Industries Association provided a presentation to address modernization of current export control systems to attempt to make them more efficient, predictable and transparent.
In the short term, AIA wants to work with the executive branch and Congress to develop an export control system that not only keeps sensitive technologies out of the hands of our adversaries, but one that also facilitates trade and cooperation with our allies and partners in both mature and emerging markets.
In the long term, AIA wants to identify and pursue through legislative, regulatory, process, and organizational changes the critical elements of a modern, effective U.S. export control system. The culmination of these efforts will be a package of legislative, regulatory, and policy proposals for a system that will effectively govern the export of aerospace, defense, and dual-use products.
Information about this AIA effort is available at www.aia-aerospace.org and www.securityandcompetitiveness.org
Presentation of Papers
Mr. Donald Stevenson presented and discussed a paper on 3D displays [Action item 14]. The paper discusses the foreign availability of 3D display technology for development or production and related software. The paper proposes to decontrol egocentric and exocentric type 3D display technology and software typically used for video games, and limit control to holographic or stereoscopic type display technology and software which are not commonly available.
Comment and feedback to Mr. Stevenson and/or BIS is requested on the paper and directly related subjects.
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).
Update 02/07/2007 : BIS review and consideration continues.
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.
Update 02/07/2007 : 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.
Update 02/07/2007 : 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.
Update 02/07/2007 : Industry is working to provide a consolidated position.
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.
Update 02/07/2007 : A final paper, based on draft paper prepared by Mr. Mike Osborne to be presented to TransTAC to close out this action item.
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.
Update 02/07/2007 : 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.
Update 02/07/2007 : Mr. Stevenson provided a paper for 3D displays for TransTAC and BIS review and consideration. Feedback or comment is requested. Heads Up Displays will be the subject of future paper.
New Action 15 : TransTAC wants a common standardized format for proposing changes to ECCN entries, such as for ECCN reviews.
Next Meeting
The next TransTAC meeting, for the second calendar quarter of 2007, is set for 9:30 am Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The third calendar quarterly meeting for 2007 is tentatively scheduled Wednesday, September 12, 2007 .
The fourth calendar quarterly meeting for 2007 is tentatively scheduled Thursday, November 15, 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 2:15pm.