Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08STATE98278
2008-09-15 00:35:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

GUIDANCE FOR SEPTEMBER 15 - 26 WASSENAAR

Tags:  ETTC KSTC PARM PREL PTER 
pdf how-to read a cable
O 150035Z SEP 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA IMMEDIATE
SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
NSC WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE 0000
UNCLAS STATE 098278 


SENSITIVE
UNVIE FOR SANDBERG/AMADEO/OSTROWSKI
- NSC FOR BNILSON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM PREL PTER

SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR SEPTEMBER 15 - 26 WASSENAAR
EXPERTS GROUP MEETING

REFS: A) STATE 35469 Spring EG Guidance
B) UNVIE Vienna 291 Spring EG Report
C) STATE 66847 Intersessional EG Guidance
D) UNVIE Vienna 427 Intersessional Report

UNCLAS STATE 098278


SENSITIVE
UNVIE FOR SANDBERG/AMADEO/OSTROWSKI
- NSC FOR BNILSON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM PREL PTER

SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR SEPTEMBER 15 - 26 WASSENAAR
EXPERTS GROUP MEETING

REFS: A) STATE 35469 Spring EG Guidance
B) UNVIE Vienna 291 Spring EG Report
C) STATE 66847 Intersessional EG Guidance
D) UNVIE Vienna 427 Intersessional Report


1. (U) This cable provides guidance for the U.S.
Delegation to the September 15 -26, 2008 Wassenaar
Arrangement (WA) Experts Group (EG) meeting in Vienna.


2. (U) USDEL should seek EG consensus on US objectives
as articulated in this and previous EG guidance, the
December 2007 plenary and interagency discussions. USDEL
may accept counterproposals, deletions, or modifications
of proposals when there is consensus among agency policy
representatives that they will further such objectives.
Specific instructions by category are provided below.
USDEL will chair the Low-Light Level (LLL),Infrared
Sensors and Associated Cameras Technical Working Group
(TWG)and the Neural Networks (NN) TWG. USDEL may assist
the work of the EG in chairing other TWGs as appropriate
for furthering U.S. interests.


3. (U) USDEL should introduce US non-papers on Carbon
Fiber and Prepreg Materials, and Dry Carbon Fiber
Materials for Aircraft Repair. Talking points for these
non-papers are listed in section XIII of the guidance
below.


4. (U) USDEL is encouraged to enter into active
discussion of the non-papers presented by other
delegations.

================
Plenary Mandates
================

Neural Networks (NN) TWG
--------------


5. (SBU) The results of the intersessional NN TWG are
recorded in WA-EG (08) TWG 019. The intersessional TWG
was unsuccessful at resolving divergent opinions on the
meanings of "neural network integrated circuit" and
"neural computer". The result of this lack of a common
understanding means that the current controls are not
implemented in a consistent way by all participating
states. Three possible solutions were left open by the
TWG as a way of clarifying NN controls: 1) revising
definition of neural networks, 2) adding parameters such
as the number of internal "computational nodes", sizes
of the input and/or output vectors and clock speed, or
3) adding a note to the current NN control text that
Field Programmable Logic Devices (FPLAs) and Application

Specific Integrated Circuits (ASCICs) regardless of how
they are employed should be controlled by the existing
controls for FPLAs and ASICs.


6. (SBU) Options 1 and 2 are unlikely to be resolved in
the space of the Fall EG. Option 3 that clarifies
implementation of the current controls would seem to
have a greater chance of resolution during the Fall EG.
USDEL should support the continued work of the NN TWG
with a goal of developing a common understanding that is
applied consistently by all WA Participating States.
USDEL may support continued work by the NN TWG in 2009
based on the results of the NN TWG during the Fall EG
and the support of other states to continue the work.


Low Light Level (LLL) and infrared sensors and cameras
TWG
-------------- --------------
--


7. (SBU) The intersessional meeting on of the LLL TWG
produced a list of possible options for resolving a
number of the problems it was tasked to examine. The
results can be found in WA-EG (08) TWG 018. Guidance
for each of these issues is as follows:


A. Multialkali Photocathodes: USDEL should support a
solution that would simplify the current text of
6.A.2.a.2.a.3. and 6.A.2.a.2.b. by deleting the
decontrol note and creating a positive text in both.
6.A.2.a.2.a.3.c. should read: "c. Other "III/V compound"
semiconductor photocathodes having a maximum radiant
sensitivity exceeding 10 mA/W;". 6.A.2.a.2.b.3. should
read: "3. "III/V compound" semiconductor (e.g. GaAs or
GaInAs) photocathodes and transfer electron
photocathodes having a maximum radiant sensitivity
exceeding 15 mA/W;".


B. Sensors used in Remote Sensing (DE005): USDEL should
reserve on the solution proposed in DE005 that would
remove sensors or cameras having interchangeable lenses
and on moving this control to 6.A.3. USDEL should
support a solution that would:

- Leave the chapeau unchanged, but supports further
discussion in the LLL TWG in 2009 to examine refining
the definitions of "monospectral imaging sensors" and
"multispectral imaging sensors" and to update the
current 6.A.2.b. controls.

- Replace the decontrol note proposed in DE005 with the
following decontrol note: "6.A.2.b.1. does not apply to
"monospectral imaging systems" limited by design to
incorporate only non-"space qualified" Charge Coupled
Devices (CCD) or Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
(CMOS) based detectors or "focal plane arrays" not
specially designed or modified to achieve 'charge
multiplication' with a peak response in the wavelength
range exceeding 300 nm but not exceeding 900 nm."


C. Direct View Imaging Equipment and Cameras: There is
currently no consensus within the interagency as how to
solve this problem. USDEL should collect the views of
other delegations within the LLL TWG and defer
resolution of this issue until 2009. There is another
issue related to both the remote sensing discussion in
paragraph B above and this paragraph on direct view
imaging equipment that merits further TWG discussion.
That issue is where is the dividing line between and
Optical Sensor (6.A.2.) and a Camera (6.A.3.). Advances
in technology associated with miniaturization will
continue to blue the lines between these two. Also
modern production techniques lead to greater
specialization which in turn leads to increased trade in
assemblies that may be treated differently in different
WA participatin states. If that is the case, it
potentially makes the controls less effective.


D. Space Qualified: USDEL should support a solution
that would eliminate the current ambiguity in the
control text that could be interpreted that "space
qualified" focal plane arrays are not "space qualified"
detectors. USDEL should support the following solution
that would not result in a change of the scope of
control:

- Add a note immediately after 6.A.2.a.1. that reads:
"6.A.2.a.1.a., b. and c. include "focal plane arrays".

- Add a new sub-item d that reads: "Space qualified"
"focal plane arrays" having more than 2,048 elements per
array and having a peak response in the wavelength range
exceeding 300 nm but not exceeding 900 nm."

- Deletes 6.A.2.e.

- Modifies the Sensitive List by 1) adding a reference
to 6.A.2.a.1.d., 2) deleting the reference to 6.A.2.e.
in 6.A.2.c. and 3) deleting the reference to 6.A.2.e. in
6.A.3.b.4.


E. Definitions: USDEL should encourage completion of the
other tasks before the TWG embarks on an open-ended
discussion of definitions.


F. Software to control frame rate: The U.S. has
submitted US016 Rev 2 as a result of discussions during
the intersessonal TWG. Talking points are listed in
Category 6.


G. Underwater cameras: USDEL should support the
revision of the current text in Category 8 to bring it
into line with changes made in Category 6 in 2007.
USDEL should listen to the views of others with respect
to moving camera controls in Category 8 to Category 6.
USDEL may engage in a preliminary review of the
associated problems that would need to be addressed to
make such a move. USDEL may also support a plenary
mandate for 2009 to examine in detail the implications
of moving control text for underwater cameras to 6.A.3.
USDEL may support revising 8.A.2.f. to remove the
current decontrol note and align the control text with
the changes made in Category 6 in 2007 to control
devices using charge multiplication as follows:

f. Electronic imaging systems specially designed or
modified for underwater use and having any of the
following:,

1. Image intensifier tubes by specified by
6.A.2.a.2.a.2.b. or 6.A.2.a.2.b; or

2. Non-"space-qualified" "focal plane arrays" specified
by 6.A.2.a.3.g.;


H. Performance based controls for cameras: USDEL may
actively participate in an exploration of benefits,
disadvantages and complexities of developing performance
based controls for cameras. USDEL may support an EG
request for a plenary mandate that would continue to
explore this issue in 2009.

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) TWG
-------------- -


8. (SBU) The GNSS TWG opened the door for achieving long
standing U.S. objective with respect to the control of
GNSS receivers (Ref B). USDEL should support the text
in WA-EG (08) 005 for 7.A.5. incorporating option 1.

USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. very much appreciates the work done in the
GNSS TWG during the April meeting.

-- The U.S. would like to thank Mr. Peter Szorenyi for
his very able leadership of that TWG.

-- The U.S. hopes that the Fall EG will be able to come
to consensus following the progress made on this issue
during the Spring EG.

Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) related technologies
TWG
-------------- --------------
---


9. (SBU) The work of the IED TWG was split into two
parts during the Spring EG (REF B) and resulted in
separate reports on electronic and explosive detonators,
WA-EG (08) TWG 002 Rev 1, and on jamming devices for
remotely controlled IEDs, WA-EG (08) TWG 006. There was
no intersessional work on either of these issues. Two
sessions are scheduled during the Fall EG. Guidance in
REF A is still pertinent with respect to proposals for
control of detonators in Category 1. With respect to
jamming devices for remotely controlled IED's, USDEL
should continue to support the alternative text it
tabled during the Spring EG.

Vessels (ML) TWG
--------------


10. (SBU) A significant amount of time was devoted to
the revision of ML9 during the intersessional meetings
(REF D). Canada submitted a non-paper, WA-EG (08) CA
008, that focused the vessels discussion on ML9 and away
from Category 8. CA008 served as the basis for
discussion during the intersessional meetings. USDEL
should continue to work within this TWG to clarify the
text in ML9. Guidance for CA004 and GB014 is in
Category 8. Guidance for CA005 and GB018 is in Category

6.

Dialogue with MTCR's Technical Expert Meeting (TEM)
-------------- --------------


11. (SBU) The intersessional TWG on EG/TEM dialogue was
very productive (REF D). The results of this work are
reported in WA-EG (08) TWG 016. USDEL should support
the EG chair providing this document to her TEM
counterpart as a means of identifying potential future
topics for a continuation of this dialogue.

Chairman's Issues (TFEI)
--------------


12. (SBU) The Spring EG approved 7 of the 9 changes WA-
EG (08) Chair 003 Rev 1, Annex I, and all the change in
Annex III. For items raised in Annex II, USDEL should
maintain that those items should be the subject of
national proposals as resolving these items goes beyond
the purely editorial. USDEL should engage the Chair on
how the EG will address editorial issues in the future.
Various ideas have been proposed, such as setting aside
time during the Spring EG to review changes made in the
list the previous year, but no concrete proposals have
been discussed. USDEL could support a "friends of the
chair" group that would develop such proposals for EG
discussion. Without some mechanism for annual editorial
review of list changes, eventually the inconsistencies
found in the list in 2007 will reemerge.


13. (SBU) USDEL can support a review to the Guidelines
for Drafting the List. Additions that explain common
Wassenaar usage could be a useful addition to the
guidelines and would help to insure that all 40
participating states interpret the text in a similar
manner. USDEL may also engage in discussions about the
usefulness of putting the guidelines on the WA web site
as a means of expanding the understanding of WA control
lists.

======================================

I. CATEGORY 1 - ADVANCED MATERIALS
======================================


A. (SBU) Category 1 Title. New Title. GB013 Rev 1.
This proposal would change the title of Category 1 from
"Advanced Materials" to "Materials and Protection
Equipment". The U.S. supports the concept of changing
the title of Category 1 to more accurately reflect it
contents, but it is not clear that the current proposal
achieves that goal. Materials is an extremely broad
classification and it is not clear that all of the items
currently in Category 1 are captured by "Materials and
Protective Equipment". USDEL should strive for a title
that accurately reflects the contents of Category 1 and
may agree to a change that garners consensus. USDEL may
draw on the following talking points:

-- The U.S. supports the concept of changing the title
of Category 1 to more accurately reflect its contents.

-- We are not sure that the UK proposal catches
everything currently specified in Category 1.

-- Are detonators in 1.A.7. protective equipment?

-- The U.S. looks forward to working with other
delegations to find a solution to this problem.


B. (SBU) 1.A.2. Note 2. Modification (additional
exclusions). DE002. This proposal decontrols finished
and semi-finished composite structures or laminates used
in production equipment for mono- and polycrystalline
silicon and wafers, and metal treatment furnaces. USDEL
should ensure that items currently controlled in
Categories 2 and 3 remain controlled and are not
decontrolled by DE002. USDEL may join consensus if the
following concern is adequately met:

-- The U.S. understands that Germany believes that these
new decontrols for certain production equipment and
metal treatment furnaces would not apply to items that
are currently controlled in Categories 2 and 3.

-- Items currently listed or controlled as "components
therefor" will remain controlled.

-- The U.S. would like to find a way to make this clear
not only to all Participating States, but also to
exporters who might misinterpret the proposed decontrol.

-- With respect to the decontrol for production
equipment for mono and polycrystalline silicon and
wafers, the U.S. has a number of questions:

--- The U.S. would appreciate some examples of the
actual equipment to which Germany thinks this decontrol
might apply.

--- The U.S. would also appreciate being able to see
some examples of the finished or semi-finished items
that would be subject to this decontrol.

-- Based on the pictures in DE002, the U.S. has concerns
that some of those parts could be diverted for use in
rocket motors. The long cylinders look very similar to
some composite parts that are used in the U.S. for
rocket motors.
To prevent diversion to rocket motor cases, the
decontrol should be limited to 1.A.2.b.1. materials.
The U.S. believes that DE002 deals with carbon fiber
reinforced graphite, or carbon-carbon. If control is
maintained on organic resin composites the risk of
diversion will be decreased.

-- The U.S. would also like to see the word "heat'"
added to item "f" so that it reads "metal heat treatment
furnaces". This is to distinguish heat treatment
furnaces from casting or melting furnaces.

IF NEEDED:
--------------

-- USDEL does not believe that it is possible to
identify crystal growing equipment and metal treatment
furnaces that are 'purely civilian' and therefore
neither are their components. Doesn't this make this
decontrol an empty box?



C. (SBU) 1.A.4. Clarification of controls on
decontamination equipment. CA003. This proposal
attempted to clarify the control text on decontamination
equipment by removing the word "therefor." During the
Spring EG, it became clear that this proposal is more
complex than originally thought and Canada said that it
intended to produce a revised text. Canada now
indicates that as this case is more complicated than it
originally thought, it does not plan to pursue this
proposal any further this year. USDEL should maintain
its study reserve pending further proposals from Canada.


D. (SBU) 1.C.8. Note 1. Clarification of control in non-
fluorinated polymeric substances. FR001, US001 and
CRP003. As a result of informal consultations during
the Spring EG FR001 and US001 were combined into CRP003.
USDEL should support the addition of "fusible" to note
1, the Nota Bene referring to 1.A.3. and the Technical
Note defining fusible. USDEL should work with the
French delegation and others to find acceptable language
for note 2. USDEL cannot agree to note 2 unless the
French delegation can provide both a substance and its
percentage that is in the paint or varnish that makes
recovery of the non-flourinated polymeric substance
difficult. In the case of bismaleimides and armotic
polyimides, USDEL should consult with Washington before
any agreement. USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. appreciates the positive work done in
developing CRP003 during the Spring EG.

-- Non-fluorinated polymeric substances are often
dissolved in a solvent. They may be dissolved in a
solvent both for shipping and also for ease of
manufacturing. It would be hard to distinguish between
a paint or varnish and a of non-fluorinated polymeric
substance suspended in a solvent for future use. Thus a
decontrol as specified in the note 2 of CRP003 without
any qualification would seem to create a loophole for
controlling these substances.

-- We are ready to meet with interested parties to try
to resolve this issue.


E. (SBU) 1.C.10.b. Notes. Updating JIS (Japanese
Industrial Standard) referred in the Technical Note.
JP002. During the Spring the EG agreed to delete
reference to a Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) that
has been repealed. The remaining portion of this
proposal involves the ISO-10618 reference. Based on a
review of the SACMA and ISO standards, USDEL may join
consensus to adding the ISO 10618 as proposed in JP002.
USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. can support JP 002

-- A review of the SACMA SRM 16-90 and ISO-10618 shows
they are fairly similar. The main difference is that
the ISO standard allows additional materials in the test
process. The revised Technical Note allows
Participating States three options for determining
material properties. Countries are still free to use
their national test methods.


F. (SBU) 1.C.10.a. Notes. Two new decontrol notes to
1.C.10.a. for aramid "fibrous or filamentary materials".
RU001. This proposal seeks to harmonize aramid fiber
control with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and
establish a new class of decontrol notes that would
allow for license free export of samples that were to be
returned to the exporter. During the intersessional
meetings, the Russian delegation made a detailed
presentation concerning this proposal. Unfortunately,
the presentation raised as many questions as it
answered. USDEL should remain on Study Reserve on this
proposal. USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. appreciates the additional information
provided by the Russian delegating during the summer
intersessional meeting with respect to RU001.

-- The WA controls these fibers for additional purposes
that are not of concern to the NSG. Therefore, it may
be appropriate that WA controls do not match those of
the NSG.

-- As an example, the N.B. in 1.A.5. makes clear that
the Wassenaar Arrangement controls 1.C.10.a. materials
for reasons that are not covered by the NSG.

-- Our study has shown that the surface modification of
the fibers assists in both making soft armor as well as
hard or composite armor.

-- U.S. patent 5,229,199, for example, is a Dupont
patent for rigid composites for impact resistance. The
rigid composite used aramid fibers coated with 0.2 to 5%
of 2-perfluoroalkylethyl ester.

-- The U.S. believes that incorporating the proposed
Note 2 would conflict and create an ambiguity with the
current control in 1.A.5.

-- With respect to Note 3, the U.S. is concerned about
enforcement of this proposal. The U.S. has no mechanism
for registering the return of the item as proposed in
Note 3.

-- The U.S. is also concerned about controls that are
based on a limited amount of material or items. Such an
exclusion could be applied throughout the lists and
would tend to make the control text ineffective.

-- The U.S. does not believe that Note 3 is an
appropriate decontrol note for the Wassenaar dual-use
list. It involves larger questions of national
implementation that are not properly the question of the
EG.

=====================================
II. CATEGORY 2 - MATERIALS PROCESSING
=====================================


A. (SBU) 2.B. Technical Note 5 - Adding rotary axis to
the Technical Note. JP003. This proposal applies the
same standard (ISO 230/2 (1997)) to determine accuracy
for rotary axes as currently exists for linear axes.
This proposal strikes the word "linear" as it modifies
"axis accuracies" for machine tools. Several
delegations raised questions about this proposal during
the Spring EG. Japan requested more time to study the
issues raised. No tour de table was taken. USDEL should
place a study reserve on JP 003 pending additional
clarifications from Japan. If other delegations reach
consensus on this change and the U.S. receives adequate
clarifications, USDEL may join a consensus on removal of
"linear" from Technical Note 5. USDEL may draw on the
following points:

-- During the Spring EG the U.S. listened carefully to
the concerns raised by others with respect to JP003.

-- -- USDEL believes ISO 230/2 (1997) applies to both
linear and rotary axes, but would like the concurrence
of other delegations on this view.

-- The U.S. notes that the current control text is not
consistent in setting standards for measuring accuracy.
We note that the parameters specified for a rotary axes
in 2.B.1.e.2.b., 2.B.6.b.2., and 2.B.8.b. are not in
accordance with any standard. The U.S. is interested in
the views of others as to whether the ISO reference
should be applied to these rotary axis parameters.


B. (SBU) 2.B.1. Note 2. Modification of Technical Note
2 c. DE003. This proposal changes the decontrol note
to "conform" to the NSG control. The proposal seeks to
change "Extruder worms" to "Worms or (screw) threads".
During the Spring EG, an alternate formulation went into
the Category 2 working paper that reads, "Worms [or
external threads]". Only the USDEL and the UK are on
study reserve for this revised formulation. USDEL
should maintain a study reserve unless there is a clear
understanding to the limits of this decontrol. USDEL
may draw on the following points:

-- To better understand this proposal the U.S. would
like to know if 'external worms' are produced on special
purpose machines?

-- In the U.S. understanding, screws, threads, and
external threads are a broad category of components.
The example provided notes tools capable of production
of compressor rotors. Other critical thread shaped
components include ball screws, turbine parts and
propeller blades. The U.S. is concerned that opening
the decontrol to include screws and threads will create
a significant loophole in machine tool controls.

-- How might the text be worded to limit the extent of
the decontrol?

-- The U.S. is concerned that the machines given as
examples to be decontrolled appear capable of producing
products beyond simple screws or worms.


C. (SBU) 2.B.6. Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM).
US002 Rev 1. This proposal removes the language
referencing a slope of L/1000, related to the maximum
permissible error (MPEE) of indication parameter; adds
new control language for specifying the quality of the
measurement probe used to determine the accuracy of the
CMM through the use of unidirectional repeatability at 2
sigma of better than 0.35 um; and proposes positive text
in the chapeau to replace the decontrol note for CMMs
controlled because only a small measuring range is
better than 1.7 um with. If other delegations insist on
retaining a reference to a slope of l/1000, USDEL should
not block consensus. USDEL may draw on the following
points:

-- The U.S. appreciates all the positive feedback that
we had on this proposal during the Spring EG and has
issued a revised proposal taking those comments into
account.

-- The U.S. believes that deleting the reference to
L/1000 will clarify and simply this control.

-- MPEE of CMMs is measured using a probe and the
quality of the probe is critical in accurately
determining the MPEE.

-- Probes have an associated error that can be
calculated according to ISO standards; however, probe
manufacturers typically specify probe repeatability in
their brochures. It is easier to use the probe
repeatability specified by the probe manufacturer than
to use the ISO calculation which would need to be based
on measurements made on a high quality CMM to verify the
probe quality. Therefore the U.S. has added a probe
repeatability parameter

-- To take account of machines that meet the accuracy
parameter only over a short range, a 70 mm measuring
length was added as a threshold to the accuracy
parameter to release such machines.

IF NEEDED:
--------------

-- If countries object to the use of 2 sigma to
characterize the probe, USDEL would be receptive to
alternative language such as "or measured in accordance
with the probe manufacturer's specifications/test
procedures." Note that in the machine tool ISO standard
(ISO 230/2),2 sigma is embedded in the accuracy
calculation.

=====================================
III. CATEGORY 3 - ELECTRONICS
=====================================


A. (SBU) (SBU) 3.A.1.a.7. and 10. Field Programmable
Logic Devices (FLPD) and Custom Integrated Circuits.
JP005. The proposal relaxes control levels on these
products. Considerable progress was made on this
proposal and US017 at the intersessional meetings (Ref
D). Japan agreed during the intersessional meetings to
delete the parameter for "basic gate propagation delay
time" (BGPDT) from 3.A.1.a.7. leaving US017 as the sole
proposal addressing 3.A.1.a.7. With respect to the part
of JP005 which addresses 3.A.1.a.10. (custom integrated
circuits with unknown functionality),USDEL has engaged
the Japanese delegation over the possibility of setting
the BGPDT at .02 ns vice the Japanese proposed .01 ns.
USDEL may join consensus on JP005 provided the BGPDT is
set at .02 ns. USDEL may draw upon the following
points:

-- We appreciate the work done on JP005 during the
intersessional meetings.

-- We understand that Japan is now willing to drop the
"basic gate propagation delay time" from 3.A.1.a.7.

-- The U.S. can support raising the number of terminals
from 1,000 to 1,500 in 3.A.1.a.10.

-- The U.S. can also support some relaxation in the
'basic gate propagation delay time" in 3.A.1.a.10.
However, the U.S. has concerns with relaxing the BGPDT
to 0.01 ns. The U.S. could accept a relaxation of BGPDT
to 0.02 ns.



B. (SBU) 3.A.1.a.7. FPLD's. US017 Rev 1. This proposal
updates the FPLD control text. Good progress was made on
this text during the intersessional meetings. USDEL may
draw upon the following points:

-- We believe that after work during the intersessional
US017 may be close to achieving consensus.

-- We understand that Japan may now be willing to accept
deletion of the to BGPDT parameter from 3.A.1.a.7.

-- USDEL stands ready to answer any questions that other
delegation may still have with respect to US017.



C. (SBU) 3.A.1.b.10/3.A.2.d. Phase Noise
Instrumentation. US003 Rev 1. This is a proposal to
add a new control for low-phase-noise oscillators and to
update the current control parameters for certain
microwave low-phase noise frequency synthesized signal
generators. It attempts take into account the current
state of dual-use products and to address products whose
performance makes them of concern. After consultation
with interested delegations between sessions, the U.S.
submitted a revised proposal. This revised proposal
adjusts the scope of control of the original US003 in
that it removes the 3.2 GHz frequency floor the proposed
new 3.A.1.b.10. control for component-level oscillators
and oscillator assemblies (controlling more oscillators
and oscillator assemblies). The revision adds a 3.2 GHz
frequency floor to the revised 3.A.2.d.4. signal
generator control (controlling fewer frequency
synthesized signal generators). USDEL may draw on the
following points:

-- This proposal adds a new component control for low-
phase noise oscillators and oscillator assemblies in
3.A.1.b.10. and revises the current test-equipment
control for frequency-synthesized signal generators in
3.A.2.d.4. After intersessional consultation with
interested delegations and reflection, the U.S. has
submitted US003 Rev1

-- During the intersession, it was determined that low-
phase-noise oscillators and oscillator assemblies below
3.2 GHz are also of concern. The U.S. therefore revised
its original proposal to address this concern. A revised
frequency floor of 150 MHZ is thus proposed to capture
items of primary military interest while avoiding widely
used commercial items.

-- These devices are especially useful in designing,
building and testing advanced Doppler radars which can
provide moving object detection in clutter.

-- The U.S. also proposes to modify the phase noise
control parameters for frequency synthesized signal
generator test equipment. the revised proposal, this
change will control low phase noise microwave test
equipment which is of concern, while at the same time
releasing test equipment below 3.2 GHz.


D. (SBU) 3.A.1.c. Acoustic Wave Devices. JP006 Rev 1.
This proposal adds "frequency side-lobe rejection" as a
local definition and relaxes controls on these devices.
Following the intersessional meetings, Japan has tabled
a revised proposal attempting to take into consideration
concerns expressed by the U.S. and others. Japan
accepted the U.S. suggestions that "frequency side-lobe
rejection" should be a local and not a global definition
and that the note should refer to "band pass, low pass,
high pass or notch filtering." USDEL may support JP006
Rev 1. USDEL may draw upon the following points:

-- The U.S. appreciates Japan's efforts to take concerns
expressed by the U.S. into consideration.

-- The U.S. is now in a position to support JP006 Rev 1.


E. (SBU) 3.A.1.f. Rotary Absolute Position Encoders.
DE004 and GB024. The proposal would liberalize the
control on rotary absolute position encoders. During
Spring EG, Germany withdrew DE004 in favor of the UK
counterproposal GB024. Following the intersessional
meetings, the U.S. has provided alternative language to
the UK. USDEL can agree to GB024 provided that the
words "an integral solid or hollow shaft and" are
deleted. USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- We are concerned that the proposed UK text decontrols
pancake encoders.

-- The U.S. believes pancake encoders are and should
continue to be controlled as they are enablers of
military systems.

-- Our interpretation is that encoders measure the
rotation of a shaft and do not require the presence of a
shaft as part of an encoder. What is important is the
accuracy of the encoder, not whether it has a shaft.

-- To address this problem, we suggest deleting the
words, "an integral solid or hollow shaft and" from
GB024.

--------------
Note to USDEL: USDEL may provide a counterproposal with
the suggested text in the tick above.


F. (SBU) 3.A.1.h. High Temperature Power Switches.
US004 Rev 1. This is a proposal for a new control on a
new class of dual-use electronic component. The U.S.
was able to collect valuable information from other
delegations during the summer intersessional meetings.
USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. has revised this proposal based on very
useful discussions during the summer intersessional.

-- Based on information presented by other delegations,
the U.S. has agreed to raise the temperature threshold
to 215 degrees C and the voltage threshold to 300 V.

-- Based on the best available information, this will
keep this proposed control from affecting mass-market
devices for electric hybrid vehicles in the near-term.

-- The high-temperature power switches which would be
caught by this control are of great utility in many
military systems.

-- Because they can tolerate higher temperatures, they
are better able to tolerate a battle environment.

-- They also do not have the stringent cooling
requirements that lower-grade components have, saving
weight and power budgets and providing more design
options to weapons system designers.

-- We look forward to answering any questions that other
delegations may have.

IF NEEDED
--------------

-- The U.S. would be willing to accept a 2 year validity
note, if that would help others reach agreement on this
proposal.


G. (SBU) 3.A.2.d. Note 3. Frequency Synthesized Signal
Generators. FR002. This proposal adds a Note stating
that single master reference oscillators are controlled
by 3.A.2.d. A fruitful exchange of information between
U.S. and France did occur in the intersessional, and the
U.S. believes that the revised US003 satisfies both U.S.
and French concerns. USDEL may draw upon the following
points:

--The US believes that US003 Rev. 1 accomplishes the
objective of FR002.

--The US hopes that France and other delegations will be
able to support US003 Rev. 1.

If FR002 not withdrawn:
--------------

--Although U.S is sympathetic to the goals of FR002,
there are several difficulties with FR002 as presented:

--3.A.2., and in particular 3.A.2.d.4. controls
electronic test equipment, not oscillator components or
assemblies.

--FR002 attempts to expand the scope of control of
3.A.2.d.4. with a Note.

--A more appropriate location for a new control for
components and assemblies is 3.A.1. US003 Rev. 1
attempts to solve this problem.


H. (SBU) SL/3.A.2.g. Revision to atomic clocks entry in
SL. GB008 Rev 1. This proposal corrects the SL to match
the changes made in the control for atomic clocks made
in the basic list in 2007. USDEL should support this
proposal. Only Russia was on study reserve at the end
of the Spring EG.



I. (SBU) 3.B.1.h. Multi-layer Masks with a Phase Shift
Layer. JP007. This proposal deletes the control text
for multi-layer masks with a phase shift layer. The
original intent of this control was to control all such
masks and the technology for producing them. USDEL will
receive supplemental guidance on this proposal.

===========================================

V. CATEGORY 5 PART 1 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
===========================================


A. (SBU) 5.A.1.f. Further amendment to Dual-Use Jammer
control. GB003 Rev 1. This proposal seeks to add a
control for jamming equipment that relies on the
specific characteristics mobile phone telecommunications
protocols. GB has identified jamming equipment which
exploits certain mobile telecommunications equipment
based on design characteristics without actually having
to detect a signal. The revised GB003 does not change
the existing controls it only adds to them. USDEL may
agree to this proposal with edits noted below. USDEL
may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. wants to thank the UK for the revised
version of this proposal issued during the Spring EG.

-- It leaves the current control text unchanged and adds
a new type of equipment that the UK has identified that
functions in this area.

-- The U.S. can support this addition.

-- The U.S. believes that the following editorial
changes should be made:

--- "Having" should be deleted in the chapeau after
"and" and before "any of the following"

--- The verbs in the sub-entries should be changed to
"simulate", "detect", and "exploit" to be consistent
with the chapeau.


B. (SBU) 5.D.1.e. C3I & C4I Software. GB006. This
proposal adds a dual use control for software specially
designed for Command, Communications, Control and
Intelligence (C3I) or Command, Communications, Control,
Computer and Intelligence (C4I) applications. During
the intersessional meeting, strong reservations were
expressed about this proposal, including in a paper
presented to the UK government by its own industry. The
U.S. anticipates that the UK will withdraw this
proposal. If not withdrawn, USDEL should remain on
study reserve. USDEL may draw upon the following
points:

-- The U.S. appreciates the insights shared during the
intersessional meetings by the UK delegation on this
proposal.

-- Based upon this information and further review, the
U.S. believes that more time is needed to fully
understand the possible implications of a dual-use
control for commercial C3I and C4I software.


C. (SBU) 5.E.1.c.2.d. "Update to 5.E.1.c.2.d."
Liberalization of Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM)
technology control). US011 and JP014. These proposals
would liberalize the technology controls on WDM. USDEL
should support JP014 and withdraw US011. If Germany
insists on dropping the N.B. referencing laser controls
in Category 6, USDEL should not block consensus. USDEL
may draw upon the following points:

-- Having reviewed JP014, the U.S. is now ready to
withdraw US011 in favor of JP014.


D. (SBU) 5.E.1.c.6. Technology for Ultraviolet (UV) Non-
Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Communications Systems. US010.
This US proposal is for a new control on a new
technology, which is finding uses on the battlefield
and, from US regulatory experience, is also finding non-
military uses. USDEL may draw upon the following points:

-- The U.S. would like to emphasize that this proposal
is strictly a technology control and does not control
any equipment.

-- Military uses for this technology have been
demonstrated, but the same attributes that make this
technology militarily useful will also make it
commercially useful as a wireless-networking technology.

-- The U.S. believes that the potential of this emerging
technology makes it appropriate to establish a dual-use
control.

IF NEEDED
--------------

-- The U.S. would be willing to accept a 2 year validity
note, if that would help other reach agreement on this
proposal.


E. (SBU) 5.E.1.d./5.E.1.e. Technology for electronic
devices which are specially designed for
telecommunications. US012 Rev 1. This proposal for new
telecommunication technology controls attempts to reduce
any confusion that may exist between the controls in
Category 3 and those in Category 5 for similar items.
USDEL should seek consensus on this proposal. USDEL may
draw upon the following points:

-- The goal of this proposal is to reduce possible
ambiguity in the current control text as to whether the
technology for the "production" and "development" of
MMIC power amplifiers and superconducting filters that
are controlled in Category 3 are also controlled in
Category 5 Part 1 when this technology is used for the
"production" and "development" of telecommunications
applications.

-- Based on input during the Spring EG the U.S. revised
its proposal adding the actual controls in Category 5
Part 1 to further clarify the intent of this control.

===========================================
VI. CATEGORY 5 PART 2 - INFORMATION SECURITY
===========================================


A. (SBU) 5.A.2.a.7. High assurance "ICT security"
systems and devices. AU002. This proposal adds a control
for high assurance non-cryptographic devices such as
data diodes, content filters (guards) and Multiple
Independent Levels of Security (MILS) kernels. The U.S.
sympathizes with the intent of this Australian proposal.
However, the U.S. has reservations about using a control
parameter that is defined by an organization to which
only 21 of the 40 WA participating states belong and
that does not have an agreed definition among the states
that are signatories to the Common Criteria Recognition
Agreement (CCRA). It is not clear how such a control
could be implemented by WA states that are not
participants in the Common Criteria process. Finally
there is a problem with a parameter that is based on a
voluntary test. USDEL should not block consensus on
this proposal, if all others agree provided that the
control parameter is raised to EAL 6+. USDEL may also
support the use of a validity note for this proposal if
that appears to be necessary. USDEL may draw on the
following points:

-- The U.S. understands and supports the intent of
AU002.

-- However, the U.S. has a number of concerns about how
it would be implemented.

-- The U.S. has concerns about a performance parameter
that is set by another organization being adopted as a
WA control parameter. The U.S. has not been able to
identify another instance of this in the control list.

-- The U.S. is also concerned about how different
participating states will understand and implement the
proposed control parameter.

-- Finally, the U.S. understands that the Common
Criteria Recognition Agreement states periodically
review and amend the definitions of the various EAL
levels. If that is the case, it would seem that any
such changes that would effect WA dual-use controls
should also be reviewed by the EG.


B. (SBU) 5.A.2. Definition of "Personalised smart card".
DE001 Rev 1. This proposal would expand the definition
of smart card and would thereby expand the smartcard
decontrol Note. The German revision of this proposal
during the Spring EG more clearly tied this decontrol to
electronic passports. The USDEL should continue to
support this proposal.


C. (SBU) 5.A.2. Note h. Decontrol of special equipment
designed for service of mobile devices that fulfill
criteria set in Cryptography Note 3 in Category 5, Part

2. FI001 Rev 1. This proposal appears to build upon
where SE001 stood at the conclusion of the September
2006 EG. This proposal for a new decontrol Note seeks
to decontrol a specific set of service tools and test
equipment (and associated operation technology and
software) for mobile handsets. USDEL worked with the
Finnish delegation to produce the revised proposal which
the U.S. then supported. USDEL should continue to
support this proposal.


D. (SBU) 5.A.2. Introducing New Parameter to
Cryptography Control and Decontrolling Asymmetric
Algorithm. JP008. This proposal is problematic for the
U.S. It broadly liberalizes current cryptography
controls, removing most (if not all) relevant export
controls on symmetric cryptography, asymmetric
cryptography (including key exchange/PKI),network-layer
encryption (e.g., routers),and 100m wireless
(WiFi/802.11x) dual-use commodities, software and
technology. Eleven countries were on study reserve at
the end of the Spring EG. USDEL should work with others
in continuing to raise concerns about this proposal.
USDEL should maintain its study reserve. USDEL may draw
on the following points as needed:

-- The scope of this proposal seems quite far reaching.

-- It raises a great number of questions:

-- Has Japan studied symmetric key lengths other than
192-bits for all products across the board and 512-bits
for routers? Is so, what were the findings?

-- Is there any reason why routers should have a higher
key length than the other products?

-- Japan has provided a definition of encrypted backhaul
throughput. Is this an industry standard definition?

-- The U.S. proposes that interested delegations have a
detailed discussion to evaluate the implications of this
proposal as well as the other proposals in Cat 5 Part 2.


E. (SBU) 5.A.2. Exclusion of Wireless Personal Area
Network (PAN) Encryption Items from 5.A.2. US014 Rev 2.
This proposal would add a new decontrol Note
specifically addressing wireless PAN products such as
wireless keyboards, wireless mice, headsets/headphones,
home/business/industrial automation and systems
controllers, etc. The latest revision of this proposal
replaced the word "typically" with "nominal" to address
the concerns expressed by a number of countries during
the Spring EG. Based on feedback the U.S. has received
to date, this change appears to have been well received.
USDEL should continue to seek consensus on this
proposal. USDEL may draw upon the following points as
needed (last point addresses the most recent revision):

-- The U.S. believes that decontrol of personal area
networks is warranted as these systems have become quite
common and when limited to short range systems, they do
not pose a significant security threat.

-- The definition of a "personal area network" proposed
by the U.S. is very similar to that of a "local area
network." The difference between the two definitions is
in the smaller geographic area covered by the PAN.

-- Among the short-range wireless technologies that
would be released by this proposal are Bluetooth, Wibree
and ZigBee.

-- This proposal would not decontrol local area networks
such as those based on the WiFi standard.

-- To meet the concern expressed by others over use of
the word "typically" that would seem to be open to a
wide range of interpretation, the U.S. has substituted
the "nominal" which has a more precise technical
connotation.


F. (SBU) 5.A.2. Decontrol of "software" designed for
telecommunication network management. FI002 Rev 1. FI
002 is similar to a recent proposal (SE 001 at the
outset of April 2006 EG, before it was scaled back) that
the U.S. had serious concerns about and that was not
accepted. The U.S. continues to have serious concerns
about this proposal. USDEL should continue to engage
with Finland and other delegations to address these
concerns and maintain a study reserve on this proposal.
USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. continues to study FI002 Rev 1.

-- The U.S. believes that many communications and
network infrastructures are secured, monitored and
operated with security operations center (SOC) and
network operations center (NOC) products that provide
hosted 24x7x365 monitoring and incident response
services.

-- We believe that such 'network operations' are
sensitive in nature, similar to 'network user
provisioning' functions that FI 002 Rev. 01 does not
intend to decontrol.

-- It appears quite difficult to distinguish 'network
user provisioning' from 'network operations' functions,
in either a technical or a regulatory sense.

-- For example, it is unclear whether products in fact
exist to exclusively perform network 'operations', and
not also network/user 'provisioning' (and vice-versa).

-- Lastly, it appears that the first two provisos of FI
002 Rev. 01 ('Network management "software" user account
protection' and 'Network management "software"
protection') may address authentication, access control
and anti-virus functions that are not Wassenaar
controlled. These provisions, then, may not be a needed
change to existing C5P2.

-- The U.S. looks forward to continuing to work with
Finland and other interested delegations on this
proposal.


G. (SBU) 5.B.2., 5.D.2., and 5.E.2. Clarification of the
scope of control. DE008. Germany presented this
proposal in the Spring as a counterproposal to US013.
While it is not a true counter proposal, it was inspired
by US013. It addresses a similar problem in Category 5,
Part 2, as US013 addressed in Category 5, Part 1. The
U.S. has no technical concerns about this proposal and
may join consensus.

=====================================
VII. CATEGORY 6 - SENSORS AND LASERS
=====================================


A. 6.A.1.c. Diver Deterrent Acoustic Systems. CA005.
This proposal recommends a new control 6.A.1.c. for
diver deterrent acoustic systems specially designed or
modified to disrupt divers. The U.S. appreciates the
additional information provided by Canada during the
intersessional meetings. USDEL may join consensus on
this proposal.


B. (SBU) 6.A.1.c. Diver Detection Sonars. GB018. This
proposal recommends new controls to specify sonar
systems (6.A.1.c.) and associated software (6.D.)
employed to detect divers and underwater swimmer
delivery vehicles having a detection range greater than
30 m. The U.S. continues to study this proposal and
believe that it needs further refinement. USDEL should
maintain a study reserve on this proposal. USDEL may
draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. appreciates the additional information
provided on this proposal during the summer
intersessional meetings.

-- The U.S. still has some questions that it would like
to have answered to complete its study of this proposal.

-- How are these systems to detect divers and underwater
swimmer delivery systems different from other systems
that might be used to detect fish or marine mammals?

-- The use of "detection radius" is confusing. The
radius is related to the beamwidth. Certain narrow beam
object detection or location systems are already
specified by 6.A.1.a.1.b.4. The existing control may
capture the items of interest.

-- The U.S. also notes that in its justification, the UK
says that it does not wish to control oil pipeline
protection systems that have generally only a 25 meter
detection radius either side of the pipeline. However,
as these systems have a distance between nodes of 1 km,
that would seem to indicate that along the axis of the
pipeline, the detection range is approximately 500
meters. Is the UK sure that the control text as written
would actually exclude these pipeline protection
systems?


C. (SBU) (SBU) 6.A.2.b. Remote Sensors. DE005. This
proposal is a decontrol for "Monospectral imaging
sensors" and "multispectral imaging sensors", designed
for remote sensing applications. The proposal would
remove the term "Monospectral imaging sensors" and also
add the decontrol note; "This item does not apply to
sensors or cameras having interchangeable lenses." The
rationale provided in DE005 is that the current language
controls aerial camera systems used for photogrammetry
and geographical surveying as well industrial digital
camera bodies incorporating a monospectral (VIS) imaging
sensor and having interchangeable lenses providing an
IVOF of less than 200 microrad. USDEL should maintain
its study reserve on DE005 and offer the solution
provided in paragraph 7.B. USDEL may agree to this
proposal if the solution offered in paragraph 7.B is
accepted. USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- Following productive discussions in the LLL TWG
during the intersessional meetings, the U.S. believes
that a solution can be found for the problems Germany
has sought to address in this proposal.

-- The U.S. looks forward to working with interested
delegations in the LLL TWG to find a solution.


D. (SBU) 6.A.6. Magnetometer Sensitivity -
Clarifications. CA 001 Rev 1. This proposal recommends
clarifications to 6.A.6. regarding control
specifications for magnetometer sensitivity. After
discussions with Participating States, Canada provided
an alternative definition for 'sensitivity' in lieu of
"noise level" by adding a technical note for a local
definition of sensitivity The USDEL may support the
Canadian proposal provided the definition of
'sensitivity' is modified to include the phrase "device-
limited" before "noise floor". USDEL may draw on the
following points:

-- We want to thank the Canadian delegation for a rather
elegant clarification of the magnetometer control text.

-- We concur with the Canadian proposal to replace the
term "noise level" and its associated definition with
the term "sensitity" and a local defition in the
proposed technical note.

-- We have one concern. We want to be assured that the
measured sensitivity for which the device is being
controlled is related to the best performance of the
device rather than the conditions under which it was
measured.

-- We feel that adding the word "device-limited" before
the words "noise floor" in the technical note would make
this completely clear.


E. (SBU) 6.A.6.a.2. Addition of magnetic gradiometers
to Sensitive List. CA002 Rev 1. The proposal would add
magnetic gradiometers to the sensitive list. USDEL
should support this proposal as revised based on
comments by the Russian delegation to include
gradiometers incorporating multiple magnetometers
specified in 6.A.6.a.1 (in addition to those specified
in 6.A.6.a.2). USDEL may draw on the following point:

-- The U.S. supported this Canadian proposal during the
Spring EG. We believe that the Russian comments that
led to its revision have improved it. Therefore the U.S.
would like to change its position from "support" to
"enhanced support".


F. (SBU) 6.A.8.j. Control of airborne LIDAR surveying
systems of utility for amphibious warfare. GB011. This
proposal continues the work done by the UK in 2007 on
this topic. The proposed text is the same as WA-EG (07)
GB 008 Rev 3 with the exception of minor amendments in-
line with the agreed drafting guidelines. This UK
proposal would add controls for LIDAR equipment capable
of airborne littoral surveying based on the
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1
Standard for Hydrographic Surveys (Special Publication
No. 44, April 1998). The concerns and rationale for
control presented in the UK proposal are valid. USDEL
may join consensus on this proposal. USDEL may draw on
the following points after this proposal has been
agreed:

-- The U.S. believes that GB001 has brought forward an
important technology for EG discussion.

-- The U.S. would like to share ideas with others about
future work related to this topic with the possibility
of developing a non-paper or a proposal and possible TWG
work in 2009.


G. (SBU) 6.D. IR Camera Frame Rate Software. US016 Rev

2. This proposal introduces new software control to
close a loophole associated with current decontrols for
cameras employing microbolometers. After a lengthy
discussion during the intersessional meetings, the U.S.
submitted a revised proposal aimed at meeting the
concerns stated by others. USDEL may draw on the
following points:

-- The U.S. appreciates the assistance of all those
involved in the intersessional LLL TWG discussions that
led to the second revision of this proposal.

-- The U.S. believes that approval of this proposal will
close a loophole in the current controls

==========================================
VIII. CATEGORY 7 - NAVIGATION AND AVIONICS
==========================================

(SBU) 7.A.3. Note 2. Inertial equipment and specially
designed components - exception for civil vessels.
DE007. The proposal would add an additional exception
to 7.A.3. Currently, Note 2 states, 7.A.3. does not
apply to inertial navigation systems which are certified
for use on "civil aircraft" by civil authorities of a
participating state. This proposal would extend this
exception to civil vessels. The U.S. questions asked
during the Spring EG have still not been answered.
Answers provided at this stage will in all probability
require additional time to study. USDEL should remain
on study reserve on DE007. USDEL may draw on the
following points:

-- The U.S. requires additional information to fully
understand the impact of this proposal.

-- The military utility of commercial vessels may be
very different from that of commercial aircraft.

-- The proposal states the systems mentioned have no
"substantial" military significance. The U.S. would
like to more fully understand how this conclusion was
reached.

-- Some of the questions that need to be answered are:

- Is the regulatory standing of the IMO comparable to
that of the ICAO?
- Who are the civil authorities who certify civil
vessels?
- How wide spread is the use of inertial navigations
systems on commercial vessels?
- What are specific examples of the equipment that would
be subject to this decontrol? and
- What countries manufacture the equipment?

-- The US has concerns with inertial navigation
equipment and its components. In the past several
years, the EG has spent considerable time revising and
clarifying these controls. The U.S. needs to fully
understand the implications of the current proposal.

=======================
IX. CATEGORY 8 - MARINE
=======================


A. (SBU) 8.A.1.b. Non-Military Submersibles. GB 001.
This proposal revises the current control to capture
civilian submersibles now being marketed as they could
provide significant military utility. Having reviewed
the information provided during the Spring EG, USDEL may
join consensus on GB001.


B. (SBU) 8.A.1.j. Non-Military Vessels. CA004. This
proposal adds a control for vessels that are not
specially designed for military use, but have
significant military utility. The U.S. understands that
Canada does not plan to push this proposal any further
this year, but will concentrate on the revision of ML9.
USDEL should remain on study reserve on this proposal.


C. (SBU) 8.A.3. Vessels of Military Significance. GB

014. This proposal adds a control for vessels that are
not specially designed for military use, but have
significant military utility. The U.S. understands that
the UK does not intend to proceed with this proposal in
2008 and will concentrate instead on revising ML9.
USDEL should remain on study reserve on GB 014.

========================================

X. CATEGORY 9 - AEROSPACE AND PROPULSION
========================================


A. (SBU) 9.A.12.b.2. Associated systems, equipment and
components. DE006. This proposal modifies the
"guidance or control systems" to "systems for
navigation, attitude, guidance and control" to be
consistent with similar systems controlled under
Category 7. During the Spring EG some questions were
raised concerning this proposal. After further review,
the U.S. decided that further restructuring was needed
to clarify this proposal. USDEL main join consensus if
satisfied that the wording meets the original intent of
the German proposal of clarifying this text.


B. (SBU) 9.A.12.b.4. UAV Engines and Propellers. GB017.
This proposal deletes the 50,000 ft altitude requirement
for internal combustion engines and substitutes a power
output or cubic capacity and proposed new controls on
propellers designed for use on UAVs. This proposal is
problematic as witnessed by the fact that 15 countries
are on study reserve. USDEL should maintain a study
reserve on this proposal. If needed, the talking points
from the Spring guidance are still valid.

===================================
XI. NON CATEGORY SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
===================================


A. (SBU) Clarification of Basic Scientific Research.
General Technology Note. JP001 Rev 1. This proposal
attempts to clarify the definition of "basic scientific
research." During the summer intersessional meetings,
there was a very productive discussion of this proposal.
It appears that Japan is wrestling with implementing
controls on technology transfers. Part of this exercise
may be helping Japan better understand how other
participating states address this issue. USDEL should
continue to work with Japan on this issue. USDEL should
remain on study reserve on JP001 Rev 1.


B. (SBU) Statement of Understanding - Components.
AU001. This proposal would add a Statement of
Understanding that "components," which are both
unserviceable and unrepairable, are not controlled.
Discussion of this topic at the intersessional meetings
left most delegations that participated with the
conclusion that this issue should be left to national
discretion. It is not clear whether Australia intends
to pursue this proposal any further after the
intersessional discussions. USDEL should remain on
study reserve on AU001. Talking points in the Spring
Guidance are still valid.


C. (SBU) Definition of "Software". JP017. This proposal
attempts to use the definition of "software" to expand
export controls to all software that is designed to
improve the performance of an item that is not
controlled to one that would be controlled (i.e. to
circumvent controls). This proposal was submitted
during the Spring EG as a counter-proposal to US016.
During intersessional discussion of this proposal, a
strong case was made to do this on a case-by-case basis
as had been done previously. It is not clear whether
Japan intends to pursue this proposal at the Fall EG.
The Japanese delegation has repeatedly assured the U.S.
that it does not intend to hold US016 hostage to JP017.
No tour de table has ever been made on this proposal.
USDEL should place a study reserve on this proposal if a
tour de table is taken.

===================
XII. MUNITIONS LIST
===================


A. (SBU) ML2. Decontrol of tethered projectile
launchers. GB016 Rev 1. This proposal adds a decontrol
note for projectile launchers specially designed to
discharge tethered projectiles (e.g. line throwers) with
a range of up to 500 meters. USDEL should ensure that
appropriate language is included to exclude weapons and
other launchers of concern from this decontrol. USDEL
may join a consensus on this proposal if the term "line
thrower" or other appropriate limitation is
incorporated. USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- The U.S. supports the intent of decontrolling "line
throwers" but is concerned about the possible decontrol
of "wire-guided" munitions and other "tethered
projectile launchers".

-- The U.S. has conducted both tethered satellite tests
and tethered missile tests to validate and improve
engineering designs. The U.S. is concerned the current
language might decontrol such items and their associated
technology.

-- In addition, the line should not be capable of
communications to not inadvertently decontrol items of
concern.

-- The U.S. could support the use the specific term
"line throwers" to limit the decontrol.


B. (SBU) ML7. Clarification of NBC detection,
dissemination, protection and decontamination controls.
GB009 Rev 2. This proposal attempts to close a
potential loophole for NBC detection equipment. The UK
revised this proposal twice during the Spring EG with
the second revision complying with U.S. suggestions to
add "...designed or modified for military..." instead of
just "...designed...". However, the U.S. remains
concerned about the deletion of "therefor" in the
chapeau of ML7.f. USDEL should work with the UK to try
to arrive at an acceptable text that closes the existing
loophole and does not create another.


C. (SBU) ML9 and 17. Restructure of ML9 and
consequential addition to ML17. GB007 Rev 1. This
proposal attempts to restructure ML9 and include vessels
not specially designed for the military that may have
military capability. The restructuring of ML9 would
have a consequential change to ML17 without changing the
scope of control. The intersessional meetings devoted a
great deal of time to ML9. There are a number of
alternative texts under consideration in WA-EG (08) CRP

037. A number of delegations have strong reservations
about the incorporation of vessels that are not clearly
military into ML9. USDEL should continue to work in the
Vessels TWG to develop a text that would be acceptable
to all delegations and that includes those vessels
currently controlled on the USML. USDEL should be on
study reserve for any expansion of the controls beyond
what is currently controlled on the USML without
reference back to Washington.


D. (SBU) ML17. Air Conditioning Units (ACUs). GB012.
This proposal adds ACUs, specially designed for military
use to the munitions list. It is not clear what
differentiates a military air conditioner from a
standard commercial air conditioner. USDEL should
remain on study reserve on this proposal. USDEL may
draw from the following points:

-- It is not clear to the U.S. what distinguishes the
air conditioning units that GB012 proposes to control
from standard air conditioning units.

-- If the air conditioning units offer NBC protection,
they are controlled under ML7.f.1. If they do not, it
is not clear how these units differ from a normal
household or commercial appliance.

-- The U.S. would like a further explanation of what is
entailed with "specially designed for military use" with
respect to the air conditioning systems that the UK
seeks to control in ML17.


E. (SBU) ML 17.e.3. Clarify Meaning of an Electro-
Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Environment. JP009 Rev 2. This
proposal clarifies the meaning of Electro-magnetic Pulse
(EMP) ML17.e.3. USDEL may join consensus on this
proposal.

IF NEEDED
--------------

-- U.S. recognizes that Japan is concerned about the
ability to protect against electro-magnetic interference
via the use of shielding or limiting devices on
commercial equipment. If there is still confusion, the
addition of the word "hostile" or "intentionally
disruptive" in current control language such as "...for
operating in a hostile/intentionally disruptive electro
magnetic pulse environment" may be appropriate. This
wording allows for greater discrimination between
friendly and hostile operating environments.

-- HEMP does not include other sources of EMP such as
high powered microwave weapons.

-- EMI is low level, unintentional interference.

===================
XIII. US NON-PAPERS
===================


A. (SBU) 1.C.10. Carbon Fibers and Prepreg Materials.
US027. This non-paper explores changes in the use of
standard modulus carbon fibers. It is intended to open
discussion for a review of the controls in 1.C. 10. in
light of foreign availability in standard modulus
fibers. USDEL may draw on the following points:

-- U.S. industry has brought to the attention of the
U.S. Government the changing nature of the world market
for carbon fiber specified by 1.C.10.

-- The U.S. has begun its own internal review of the
current controls and market trends for carbon fiber and
would like to share some of the information provided by
U.S. industry with our Wassenaar partners.


B. (SBU) 1.C.10. Dry Carbon Fiber for Civil Aircraft
Repair. US028. This non-paper discusses concerns raised
within the U.S. about the ability of the current
decontrol note to adequately meet industry needs for
patching civil aircraft. The U.S. would like to share
preliminary findings with our WA partners. USDEL may
draw on the following points:

-- U.S. industry has asked the U.S. Government to review
the current decontrol note for carbon fibers used for
civil aircraft repairs.

-- The U.S. has begun its own internal review and would
like to share with our WA partners the issues that have
been considered to date.

-- The paper list five potential options for modifiying
the current decontrol note. The U.S. delegation would
appreciate any feedback that other delegations might be
willing to offer with respect to these options.




==============================
XIV. FOREIGN AVAILABILTY STUDY
==============================


A. (SBU) Based on a request from the Sensors and
Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC),
the Department of Commerce has initiated a foreign
availability study for thermal imaging cameras. In
pursuance of that study, the Department of Commerce has
requested information from the Department of State
concerning the export practices of some of our Wassenaar
partners.


B. (SBU) U.S. Head of Delegation may approach other
delegations to gather information to provide additional
detail in response to the questions posed by the
Department of Commerce. U.S. Head of Delegation may
also organize informal meetings to discuss this issue
with selected delegations if that appears appropriate.
RICE


NNNN




End Cable Text