Archive for the ‘USML’ Category


Nov

29

New Rules Might Require Export Licenses For Certain Corporate Security Systems


Posted by at 5:48 pm on November 29, 2012
Category: DDTCUSML

Unattended Ground SensorYesterday the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) released its proposed revisions to Category XI of the United States Munitions List (“USML”). Category XI covers military electronics. For the most part, the proposed revisions implement the laudable policy of converting the USML into a “positive” list which will cover items with specific performance characteristics rather than, as is currently the case, cover a broad category of items “specifically designed, modified or configured for military application.”

So, for example, Category XI now covers “underwater sound equipment to include active and passive detection, identification, tracking and weapons control equipment” that are “specifically designed, modified or configured for military application.” Under the proposed new rule, to be covered the underwater sound equipment must meet certain specific requirements such as being able to classify surface vessels and submarines and having certain defined characteristics, such as using an operating frequency less than 20kHz. An item that might have been modified for military purposes (whatever that means!) and that doesn’t meet those characteristics wouldn’t be on the USML at all.

In addition to adding specificity to the current types of military electronics covered by Category XI, the proposed rules add some new types of military equipment. Of most significant interest is the new Category XI(a)(8) which covers:

(8) Unattended ground sensor (UGS) systems or equipment having all of the following:
(i) Automatic target detection;
(ii) Automatic target tracking, classification, recognition, or identification;
(iii) Self-forming or self-healing networks; and
(iv) Self-localization for geo-locating targets;

The problem here is that none of these terms are defined and that they aren’t even modified by the qualifier that they were “specifically designed, modified or configured for military application.” Certainly the language seems broad enough to cover certain corporate security systems, thereby creating a potential export problems for the company if it has non-U.S. employees with visual access to these systems. This problem would be alleviated, in this instance at least, by including unattended ground sensors if they are ” “specifically designed, modified or configured for military application.”

For an interesting account of the history and development of unattended ground sensor systems, going back to when the U.S. deployed them along the Ho Chi Minh trail in 1966, I highly recommend Noah Shachtman’s excellent article “The Rock That Could Spy On You For Decades” in Wired. Interestingly, that article quotes an industry spokesman saying that the next big market for UGS systems is here in the United States for, among other things, corporate headquarters security.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

16

Could Satellites Finally Spin out of the ITAR Orbit?


Posted by at 8:48 pm on October 16, 2012
Category: Arms ExportBISCCLUSML

satelliteAccording to this article in Aviation Week, one aspect of export reform has at least some chance of eeking through the lame duck Congress that will convene after the upcoming elections. The locus of this hope is bipartisan language in the House version of the defense authorization bill that would permit the President to move commercial satellites from the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. One effect of such a change is that commercial satellites, which can’t be exported to China while listed on the USML, could be exported to China pursuant to a license from the Department of Commerce once moved to the CCL.

The Senate version of the defense authorization bill does not contain that language but there appears to be some possibility, according to a Senate Democratic aide, that the Senate, in order to get the bill passed, will consider a pre-conferenced version of the bill with the House language included. A Republican Senate staffer has suggested that Senate Republicans would not oppose such an approach.

UPDATE: A reader sent me a copy of the language from the House version of the NDAA.  That language, which can be found in section 1241, as currently written, would prohibit Commerce from granting licenses for the export of any “commercial satellite or related component or technology” to China.

Permalink Comments Off on Could Satellites Finally Spin out of the ITAR Orbit?

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

5

What an Uncool Thing To Do!


Posted by at 6:58 pm on September 5, 2012
Category: BISCCLDDTCUSML

Sonel Uncooled Thermal ImagerAccording to an article last week in Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pentagon is seeking to add uncooled thermal imaging devices to the United States Munitions List. Putting that technology on the USML, as opposed to the Commerce Control List administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), would require licenses for all exports of such technology and would prohibit exports to countries, such as China, subject to U.S. arms embargos.

Thermal imaging devices typically have to be cooled to prevent them from being “blinded” by their own internal circuitry. This results in more expensive devices as well as devices that need to warm up (or more accurately cool down) before they can function. Uncooled thermal imaging, while offering lower resolution under current technology than cooled thermal sensors, are less expensive and easier to operate. Uncooled thermal imaging has a number of non-military applications, such as collision-avoidance cameras used in new automobiles and investigation of heat leaks in homes. A contractor investigating leaks from exterior walls into my house used one. (Useless application: the camera viewfinder showed thermal paw prints left by my dog several minutes earlier!)

As the Bloomberg article points out, uncooled thermal imaging devices are produced by companies outside the United States, including Ulis in France; SemiConductor Devices in Israel; NEC Avio Infrared Technologies Co. in Japan; and Zhejiang Dali Technology Co. in China. The uncooled thermal imaging camera used by my contractor was made by Sonel in Poland (a similar model of which is pictured at right.)

The proposal to add uncooled thermal imaging to the USML is currently undergoing interagency review. A revised USML including that technology could appear as early as this month according to an anonymous DOD source cited by the Bloomberg Businessweek report.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

8

Skip to My Loo


Posted by at 6:43 pm on November 8, 2011
Category: DDTCUSML

ToiletMy inbox this morning had several, er, heads up alerting me to news that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) has removed toilets from the United States Munitions List (“USML”). Needless to say, this was a blogging opportunity that I could not let go to waste.

More specifically, DDTC removed chemical toilets manufactured by MAG Aerospace Industries for use in military aircraft. The toilet in question was initially manufactured for the Lockheed C-130 and was subsequently modified for other military aircraft.

In explaining why these specially configured military aircraft components are being removed from the USML, DDTC said this:

The core functionality of the toilet remains the same as a model used for commercial aircraft.

That may be my favorite example of bureaucrat-ese ever. It translates, of course, into plain English as this: “The purpose of both models is to …” I bet you are relieved I didn’t finish that sentence, aren’t you?

For those that may not be privy to all aspects of export law, the DDTC adds at the end of the notice that the removal of the toilets from the USML does not mean that they can now be exported to Iran or other embargoed countries. Those poor mullahs will simply have to settle for ordinary flush toilets, I guess.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

3

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Roth Appeal


Posted by at 5:41 pm on October 3, 2011
Category: Criminal PenaltiesITARUSML

Professor John Roth
ABOVE: Professor Reece Roth

The Supreme Court term began today — today being the first Monday in October — and it got right to work by denying the certiorari petition of Professor of Professor J. Reece Roth, a professor emeritus at the University of Tennessee who had been convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”). The conviction was based on, among other things, Professor Roth permitting access by a foreign graduate student to technical data relating to an Air Force military drone project. In January of this year, the Sixth Circuit dismissed Professor Roth’s appeal, which makes this pretty much the end of the road for Professor Roth.

Roth’s petition for certiorari argued that the Sixth Circuit was incorrect in its finding that the wilfulness element necessary for a conviction under the Arms Export Control Act did not require a finding that Professor Roth knew that the technology in question was on the United States Munitions List. The Sixth Circuit instead held that the standard was satisfied if Professor Roth knew that his conduct was unlawful without regard to any specific knowledge he might have relating to the USML.

Roth’s petition for certiorari relied on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gregg, 829 F.2d 1430, 1437 & n.14 (8th Cir. 1987) which appeared to hold that a conviction required a finding that the defendant knew the exported item was on the USML. The United States government, in its brief opposing Professor Roth’s petition for certiorari, argued that the decision in the Gregg case, although it cited a jury instruction requiring that the defendant knew the export item was on the USML, did not hold that the conviction would have been reversed if the jury instruction had not referenced the USML and had simply required knowledge by the defendant that the conduct was unlawful.

Permalink Comments (6)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)