Industry Asks DDTC to Tweak Export Controls for Certain Underwater Vessels, Radar Tech
Technology companies and industry groups mostly supported a January State Department rule that will add items to the U.S. Munitions List and remove other items that no longer warrant control (see 2501160027), although they said new restrictions around autonomous underwater vehicles, radar-related technology and more could cause unintended consequences.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Kongsberg Discovery, a Norwegian company that makes unmanned underwater vehicles, said one change to certain uncrewed and untethered vessels controlled in U.S. Munitions List Category XX will place “overly restrictive" thresholds on exports of those vehicles. The rule carves out certain underwater vessels from license requirements if they use systems “below certain weight and performance thresholds,” but Kongsberg said those parameters are too low.
“The current wording of the new regulation is overly broad and implies that any system exceeding the thresholds brought into US waters will be required to follow [the International Traffic in Arms Regulations], regardless of the technology’s origin or the amount of US content in the equipment,” the company said in public comments to the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls this month.
Kongsberg said its customers often use the company’s systems to collect data in waters more than 3,000 meters deep, and “many” commercial businesses operating in the offshore oil and deep-sea mining industry need vessels that can operate for multiple days at a time. “These systems will all exceed the thresholds that have been suggested” by DDTC, the company said.
Some of Kongsberg's customers told the company they will "likely move their operations overseas and limit operations within US waters” if the agency moves forward with the changes, it said, which are scheduled to take effect Sept. 16.
“The proposed changes could have a significant economic impact on US-based civilian operators and the broader industry, potentially leading to a loss of business and jobs within the US as operators might be forced to relocate their operations overseas to avoid stringent regulations,” Kongsberg said.
The Aerospace Industries Association said its members “welcome efforts” by DDTC to update the USML, but it recommended several changes that will “ensure clarity and limit misinterpretation from industry.” It specifically asked the agency to reconsider changes to USML Category VIII(h)(1), which will only “add further confusion” about how certain active electronically scanned array fire control radars are classified.
Those radar systems and their specially designed parts are currently controlled under USML Category XII(e)(1), Category VIII(h)(1) and under the Commerce Department’s Commerce Control List within Export Control Classification Numbers 3A611 or 7A611, AIA said. But the DDTC change would add “an additional variable” when those same radars are installed in a foreign aircraft because it would make the specially designed parts, components, and related technology of that aircraft also subject to the USML Category VIII(h)(1) control.
AIA said this could lead to the “inadvertent inclusion of thousands of minor parts and components that should remain on the” Commerce Control List, including certain switches, resistors and connectors “that do not contribute to an aircraft being considered ‘advanced.’”
DDTC should revise the rule to “better capture parts and components of interest and minimize confusing and evolving interpretations and the need to submit formal Commodity Jurisdiction requests to DDTC,” AIA said.
Aerospace firm RTX asked DDTC to revise USML Category XI(c)(10)(iv) to “expressly exclude” certain reception pattern antennas for position, navigation and timing. The company said it believes this change aligns with the agency’s “intent” to exclude those antennas, but the current rule “could result in them being caught under the language as initially drafted. The update will ensure that CRPAs for PNT are not inadvertently caught while still allowing DDTC to control exports of other antennas.”
Keysight Technologies said DDTC should correct what it believes is an “administrative oversight” in the rule: the listing of “radar target generators” in two places on the USML. The company said the generators are listed in both Category IX(a)(9) and Category XI(a)(3)(xxviii), adding that the agency should “remove or reserve” the entry in IX(a)(9).
“This will help eliminate confusion regarding which entry governs ‘radar target generators,’” Keysight said. “This is particularly important because the current structure could be understood to assign ‘radar target generators’ that are ‘training equipment’ under Category IX, and all other ‘radar target generators’ under Category XI.
“We assume this is not DDTC’s intent,” Keysight said, and “such an approach would also add unnecessary complexity to classification determinations without an obvious compliance benefit.”