Comment: One commenter stated that making ECCN 3A611.c and d. high electron mobility transistors (HEMT)s and microwave monolithic integrated circuits (MMIC)s ineligible for License Exception STA would, when combined with the NS1 and RS1, impose a license requirement for all destinations other than Canada, making these commodities controlled as if they were subject to the ITAR. The commenter noted that commodities in ECCN 3A001 and HEMTs in ECCN 3A982 are both eligible for STA.
Response: The November 28 (military electronics) rule and this second proposed rule would make all commodities controlled in ECCN 3A611 ineligible for paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception STA (which authorizes shipments to eight countries), but would not preclude use of paragraph (c)(1) of STA (which authorizes shipments to 36 countries).
Comment: One commenter stated that two of BIS's prior proposed Export Control Reform Initiative rules (the November 7 (aircraft) and the December 6 (gas turbine engine) rules) would preclude use of License Exception STA for electrical equipment, parts, and components specially designed for electro-magnetic interference (EMI) that conform to the requirements of MIL-STD-461. The commenter stated that this preclusion raises two difficulties. First, the distinction between electric and electronic parts and components is often unclear and that they may be ambiguously classified. The commenter also stated that this difficulty made it appropriate to raise the issue in a comment on the November 28 (military electronics) rule. Second, the commenter stated that standard MIL-STD-461 is a poor criterion for determining when items designed for EMI compatibility should be restricted from STA eligibility or subject to any reasons for control other than anti-terrorism because: (1) There are several historical versions of MIL-STD-461 that remain in effect for existing programs; (2) A number of civil requirements offer performance equal to or superior to MIL-STD-461; and (3) Military programs outside the United States may use multinational or foreign standards. The commenter states that a better criterion would be a degree of EMI protection exceeding the equivalent civil requirements for the item.
Response: BIS believes that the commenter misunderstood the scope of the rules. The rules cited by the commenter proposed restricting from STA software and technology for the development or production of aircraft electrical equipment, parts and components electrical equipment, parts, and components specially designed for electro-magnetic interference (EMI) that conform to the requirements of MIL-STD-461. They did not propose restricting from STA the equipment, parts and components themselves. The April 16 (initial implementation) rule published these restrictions in ECCNs 9D610 and 9E610 (See 78 FR 22733-22734, April 16, 2013).
Comment: One commenter provided two sets of comments. The first set provided detailed proposals for rewording USML Category XI and a number of ECCNs as they appeared in the November 28 (military electronics) rules of the Departments of State and Commerce. The second set proposed detailed rewording of a number of ECCNs and the creation of some new ECCNs in Category 9 of the CCL.