Comment: One commenter recommended removing minor parts and components in normal commercial use to which minor modifications have been made from the catch-all paragraphs for the 600 series ECCNs, arguing that such common hardware does not warrant this level of control.
Response: BIS is not adopting this recommendation. License requirements on parts and components that are specially designed for military equipment, even if they do not give the military equipment its military character, can serve the U.S. government's national security and foreign policy interests in being able to monitor, control, and otherwise have visibility into the supply chain of the parts and components that are necessary to keep military equipment functioning. The U.S. government has made a determination that such parts and components, which are now ITAR controlled, do not warrant all the controls of the ITAR. The government has not made, and does not intend to make, a determination that such items do not warrant control at all.
Comment: One commenter stated that BIS should respect prior commodity jurisdiction rulings. The U.S. government has already determined that these items do not warrant control on the ITAR as it currently exists. Therefore, they should not warrant control under 600 series ECCNs.
Response: Items not currently on the USML, in an ECCN that ends with "018," or in ECCN 0A918, have been determined not to be military items. BIS confirmed in General Order No. 5 in the
Comments on ECCN 3A101
Comment: One commenter recommended replacing the phrase "usable in missiles" with "specially designed for use in missiles," stating that the former language could lead to controlling almost any analog to digital converter because it would be impossible to prove that it could not be used in some capacity in anything considered a missile. This same commenter recommended removing paragraph .a.1 from ECCN 3A101, which applies to analog to digital converters that are " `Specially designed' to meet military specifications for ruggedized equipment," because published military specifications for ruggedized equipment address a number of characteristics that are not uniquely military.
Response: The phrases "usable in missiles" and " `[s]pecially designed' to meet military specifications for ruggedized equipment" are close paraphrases that accurately convey the meaning of the corresponding language in Category II, Item 14, 14.A.1 of the MTCR Annex. The ECCNs at issue implement the controls described in the MTCR Annex. The changes that this commenter proposes would alter ECCN 3A101 sufficiently that it would no longer accurately convey the meaning of the Annex. Therefore, BIS is not making this change. BIS notes that the control phrase "usable in missiles" is indeed substantially broader in scope than the control phrase "specially designed." BIS encourages the public to review the definition of the term in EAR section 772 for purposes of making classification determinations of items that are potentially within the scope of ECCNs that use the phrase "usable in missiles."
Most Popular Stories
- Twitter Names Woman to Board
- Obamacare Doing Just Fine, Ky. Governor Says
- Aspen Contracting Adding 300 Jobs
- Rand Paul Signs up for Obamacare
- Hispanic Employment Improves in November
- U.S. Chamber to Run Ads in Idaho, W.Va.
- U.S. Unemployment Rate Dips to 7 Percent
- Consumer Spending Rises, Incomes Fall
- Trapped Florida Whales Head for Deeper Waters
- American Eagle Issues Weak Q4 Outlook