Archive for November, 2007


Nov

7

Microwave Power Modules Added to CCL


Posted by at 12:43 am on November 7, 2007
Category: BISDDTC

Microwave Power ModulesAlmost a year after the last plenary of the Wassenaar Arrangement approved and adopted changes to the Wassenaar List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) yesterday released a final rule implementing those changes on the Commerce Control List (“CCL”). A number of changes have been made, including the addition of some items that were not previously on that list. The list of changes is too long (and in some case too tedious) to fully detail in a blog post, but I did want to discuss briefly the addition of microwave power modules to the CCL which appears to be yet another item which could pose overlapping export control jurisdiction between BIS and the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”)

Microwave power modules are a recent technology that combines solid-state and vacuum electronics to provide highly efficient and powerful amplifiers with very low signal-to-noise ratio and extremely compact size. MPMs are also known for their rapid turn-on times. These properties have made them attractive for use in military applications such as radar, communications, and unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”). In particular, MPMs have been used in the Predator and Global Hawk UAVs for both satellite and line-of-sight communications to and from the remote pilot. Commercial uses for MPMs include civilian satellite communications, wireless communications, and high power RF sources for laboratory use

The new ECCN for MPMs is 3A001.b.9. The controls on the new ECCN are NS2 and AT controls. The NS2 controls mean that licenses will be required for all countries other than those classified on those in Country Group A:1 on the Country List. License requests to any country other than one in Country Group D:1 will be subject to a general policy of approval unless there is evidence of a possibility of diversion to a country in Country Group D:1. License requests for a country in Country Group D:1 are subject to a case-by-case examination and will be approved if BIS determines that the item will not be used for military purposes. AT controls mean that license requests for exports or re-exports to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria are subject to a general policy of denial.

ECCN 3A001.b.9 sets forth certain performance requirements for an MPM to be covered. These include the unit’s turn-on time, the size of the unit as a function of its output power, and a measure relating to the unit’s instantaneous bandwidth.

A large number of MPMs are explicitly identified by their manufacturers as designed for military use, in which case they are covered under Category XI (Military Electronics) of the United States Munitions List (“USML”) or possibly Category XV (Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment). Interestingly, the related controls section of ECCN 3A001 only references, and excludes, MPMs covered under Category XV. This leads, of course, to an interesting question of overlapping or conflicting jurisdiction.

Consider, for example, an MPM designed for a military terrestrial communication system which therefore is covered by USML Category XI(a)(4)(iii). If that MPM meets or exceeds the performance characteristics of ECCN 3A001.b.9, then it would also be covered by that ECCN because only items covered by USML Category XV are excluded from the ECCN. Do you file a commodity jurisdiction request for that MPM? Or should you simply file for export licenses from both BIS and DDTC? Given the length of time it takes for a commodity jurisdiction request to be decided, the answer, of course, is to file for licenses from both agencies. To avoid this result, BIS should add to the “related controls” section of ECCN 3A001 an exclusion for MPMs covered by USML Category XI.

Permalink Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

2

There’s No Place Like Home


Posted by at 8:53 am on November 2, 2007
Category: General

AstroScope 9350XLA criminal complaint was filed yesterday in federal court in Newark against Xu Bing, a Chinese national and resident of Nanjing, for attempted export of night vision equipment to China. Not surprisingly, the arrest was the result of a sting operation, one in which the undercover agents actually lured Mr. Xu to the United States.

The story told by the criminal complaint starts when someone named “Sherley” from the Everbright Science & Technology Company, Ltd. in Nanjing contacted an undercover operation indicating an interest in purchasing an AstroScope 9350XL Gen 3 image intensified designed for use with Canon XL-series videocameras. Sherley indicated that a previous exporter had applied for a license to ship the 9350XL to Everbright but nonetheless asked the undercover company to arrange export of the equipment to China.

Thereafter an elaborate dance between the undercover agents and Sherley appears to have commenced. Although Sherley’s original plan was to have the undercover company ship the equipment to China, she ultimately told the undercover company that that Everbright was willing to pre-pay for the equipment and take delivery in the United States. The undercovers kept Shirley interested, even though they were obviously refusing to ship the equipment. How they accomplished this feat isn’t revealed in the complaint.

Finally, Everbright prepaid for the equipment and Mr. Xu flew to the United States to pick it up. While meeting with the undercover agents, Mr. Xu admitted that he knew that the night vision equipment couldn’t be legally shipped to the United States. The next thing he knew he was being read his Miranda rights and wishing, no doubt, that he’d stayed at home in Nanjing.

Permalink Comments Off on There’s No Place Like Home

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

1

Under Any Other Name


Posted by at 9:11 am on November 1, 2007
Category: General

Felipe Ramon Perez Roque
Felipe Ramón Pérez Roque

ExportLawBlog opposes, as most readers know, unilateral sanctions, including the Cuba sanctions. But the speech given yesterday by Felipe Ramón Pérez Roque, Cuba’s Foreign Minister, before the UN prior to the UN’s annual vote on a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo, didn’t do Cuba or other who oppose the embargo any favors.

The Minister’s speech, larded throughout with purple prose and hyperbole typical of the Castro regime, claims that the blockade is an “attempt to subdue the Cuban people through starvation and disease.” And, in what is probably this year’s most unwanted compliment, the Cuban Foreign Minister expressed his “solidarity” with Michael Moore and his on-going fight with OFAC over his trip to Cuba to film “Sicko.”

The Minister’s speech recounted a number of alleged effects of the embargo, but this one struck me in particular:

Cuban children cannot receive Sevorane, an inhalation anesthetic manufactured by the American company Abbott, which is the best product for children’s general anesthesia. We have to use lower-quality substitutes.

This, of course, sounds like bunch of hooey, since an inhalation anesthetic would certainly qualify as a medicine that could be exported under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”). But there is more to the story, it would seem, even if the story still remains a bunch of hooey.

Sevorane is the Canadian brand name for sevoflurane sold by Abbott Canada. That suggests that Abbott Canada, a foreign subsidiary of U.S.-based Abbott probably ran up against section 746.2(b)(3)(iii) of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), which restricts exports by foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by a U.S. parent. In the case of medicines, these exports are only allowed if the

transaction involves the export of foreign-produced medicines or medical devices incorporating U.S. origin parts, components or materials … .

If Sevorane was produced in the United States, which seems likely, then Abbott Canada couldn’t ship it to Cuba.

So why is the Foreign Minister’s anecdote still a bunch of hooey? Simple. Sevoflurane, which is sold as Sevorane in Canada, is sold as Ultane in the United States. This means that the very same inhalation anesthetic, albeit under a different name, could be shipped to Cuba under the provisions of TSRA.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, after the Foreign Minister’s speech, the U.N. passed — for the sixteenth year in a row — a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau voted with the U.S. to oppose the resolution. The resolution is unlikely to have any effect.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)