WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: (PART II OF II) EXPERTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000215

SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR ISN/CATR, T, PM/DTC, PM/RSAT
DOD FOR OSD: PDASD/S&TR, DUSD/TSP
DOD ALSO FOR DIR DTSA/ST AND DIR DTSA/STP
DOD ALSO FOR USD/(A&T)/ODUSD(I&CP) AND USD(A&T)/IDA
USDOC FOR BXA/EA/OAS AND BXA/EA/OSTFPC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/08/2019
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: (PART II OF II) EXPERTS
GROUP MEETING MARCH 30 - APRIL 9

REF: A. STATE 30105 SPRING 09 EG GUIDANCE

B. UNVIE 214

Classified By: Charge Geoff Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d).

THIS IS PART TWO OF TWO; CABLE DIVIDED BECAUSE OF LENGTH.
SEE REF. B FOR PART ONE.



--------------
List Review: Items Still Under Consideration
--------------


16. (SBU) CAT 1 (advanced materials) proposals still under
consideration:


A. 1.A.1.b./1.C.10. Editorial changes. JP001. With respect
to 1.A.1.b., this proposal makes the straightforward
editorial change of adding the phrase "having any of the
following." The 1.C.10. portion of JP001 overlaps US008 and
CA003. The U.S. chaired an informal working group to produce
a single text incorporating all three proposals. On the
1.A.1.b. portion of this proposal, Germany, the UK and Japan
were on study reserve. The U.S., Canada and Belgium were in
support. The Japanese delegation explained its study reserve
(on its own proposal) by pointing to the discussion in the
informal working group which led to a need to reconsider its
proposal in Tokyo. On the 1.C.10 portion of JP001, Japan has
not dropped its proposal to add "and prepregs and performs
therefor" to the chapeau. Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK
and the U.S. were on study reserve for this change. The
Japanese delegation again said that based on what it had
heard at the spring EG, it intended to review this portion of
the proposal.


B. 1.B.1. Decontrol of 2, 3, and 4 axis tape-laying machines.
US005 Rev 1. The biggest challenge for the USDEL with this
proposal was explaining the difference between tape-laying
and tow-placement machines. There was also extended
discussion of how these machines worked and how their axes
were identified. Germany, France and Japan are on favorable
study reserve for US005 Rev 1. All three expressed
confidence that they would be able to join consensus after
further review. Canada was the only country on study
reserve. It had previously had a different understanding of
the differences between tape-laying and tow-placement. At
the end of the spring EG, the Canadian delegation said that
it appreciated USDEL's offer to provide definitions of the
different machines, but that the information already provided
might be sufficient. Canada requested time to review that
information in Ottawa.


C. 1.C.2.b. Clarification of the scope of control of
1.C.2.b. AU002. Rev 1. Australia agreed to a number of
changes to this proposal based on comments made at the table.
The U.S. and several other delegations pointed out that
there were means other than sintering or compacting to make
metal alloys using powder metallurgy. UK and Korea are on
study reserve for this proposal. Canada, Spain and the U.S.
are on favorable study reserve. Australia requested time
during the intersessional meetings to do additional work on
this proposal as well as AU001.


D. 1.C.c.e. Aluminum alloys not made using powder metallurgy.
AU001. Several delegations, including the U.S., raised
questions about foreign availability with respect to this
proposal. Germany noted that the technology involved was
dated. There is significant resistance to this proposal.
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Great
Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, the U.S. and South Africa
are on study reserve. Sweden supports AU001. Australia
requested time during the intersessional meetings to do
additional work on this proposal.


E. 1.C.10. Carbon Composites. US008. The U.S. chaired an
informal working group that produced a text incorporating
US008, CA003 and JP001. This text is WA-EG (09) TWG 06. The
approval of the CA003 simplifies the chapeau of 1.C.10. in
line with U.S. guidance. A number of delegations raised
questions about US008. France, Germany, Japan, the UK and
Russia are on study reserve. Canada is on favorable study
reserve. USDEL received time during the intersessional
meetings to do further work on this proposal.
E


F. Category 1 Annex and ML. Adding CAS registry numbers.
JP002. Several delegations raised concerns about this
proposal. The first issue was the need for a note similar to
the current Note 2 to the ML explaining how CAS numbers
should be used in the list. Japan will consider how this
might best be done. Questions were also raised concerning
the benefit of adding CAS numbers for common items such as
silicon. The Japanese delegation requested that other
delegations review JP002 and provide it with a list of those
CAS numbers suggested to be added to the lists by Japan that
seem problematic. Japan will compile that list and circulate
it prior to the intersessional meetings. There was no tour
de table on this proposal. Time has been allocated during
the intersessional meetings for additional work.


17. (SBU) CAT 2 (materials processing) proposals still under
consideration:


A. 2.B.6. Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM). US009.
US009, the CMM proposal carried over and revised from last
year, continued to meet significant resistance. There are a
number of problems still to be resolved. The lack of an
industry standard for measuring probe accuracy is an issue.
The Dutch counter proposal based on a new, and as yet
unpublished ISO standard, complicated discussion. Japan
thought that the phrase "using all compensations available"
should apply to all of Category 2. The UK raised questions
about differentiating optical probes from scanning probes.
Both Japan and the UK expressed reservations about the
decontrol for 6 percent of the longest axis. Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and
Sweden are on study reserve. USDEL requested time do
additional work on this proposal during the upcoming
intersessional meetings. Germany, the UK and the Netherlands
all plan to bring industry experts to the intersessional
meetings.


B. 2.B.6. Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM). NL001. The
Netherlands tabled a counter proposal to US009 based on
discussions in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held
in Vienna the same week as the EG. NL001 draws on a new ISO
standard. It was pointed out that the new ISO standard has
not yet been published. This complicates the issue as until
it is published it is not official. However, a number of
states want to consider it as an alternative to US009.
Comment: A quick review of the new ISO standard by the USDEL
did not seem to offer solutions for the problems that the
U.S. has been raising in the EG with respect to CMMs for the
past year and a half. End Comment. NL001 will also be
addressed during the intersessional meeting.


18. (SBU) CAT 3 (electronics) proposals still under
consideration:


A. 3.A.1.b.11. Frequency Synthesizer Control. US012. Several
delegations raised concerns about this proposal. The UK
delegation expressed concern with the term "stand-alone" in
the current text of the Note to 3.A.2.d. and questioned
whether the note was still needed in 3.A.1.b.11. The
Canadian delegation questioned which sub-entry took priority
when an item overlapped parameters of several sub-entries.
The Canadian delegation also asked whether a Nota Bene should
not be placed in 3.A.2.b. to reflect that the previous text
for frequency synthesizers had been moved. No tour de table
was taken on this proposal. USDEL promised to consult
experts before responding, possibly with a revision of the
proposal.


B. 3.A.2.b. Definition of "Frequency Switching Time". US013.
The German delegation thought that the change in the
definition from 100Hz to 1 percent was a tremendous expansion
of the current scope of controls. USDEL promised to study
the German concern and revise the text if necessary. Near
the conclusion of the EG the USDEL seemed to convince the
German head of delegation that the U.S. text was correct and
would not have unintended consequences. No tour de table was
taken on this proposal. Subsequent to the Spring EG, the head
of the German delegation contacted the head of the USDEL
indicating that they still see the proposed wording as an
expansion of the existing controls.


C. 3.B.1.c. Anisotropic Etching Equipment. US010 Rev 1.
Several delegations raised concerns about US010 Rev 1. Japan
raised a concern that edge exclusion of 2mm or less could be
read as a control parameter and not as a means for

determining non-uniformity. USDEL promised to work on
rewording the proposal to correct that possible
misinterpretation. Belgium, Canada, Germany and Japan are on
study reserve. Sweden is in support of this proposal.


D. 3.B.1.e. Wafer Handling Systems. US015. Questions were
raised about "functionally different" and "are to be
connected". The latter appeared to be an end-use control.
The UK delegation asked how a licensing officer would know
what was going to be connected to what. Canada asked that
the second sentence in the decontrol note that contains a
double negative be written as positive control text. USDEL
answered the questions on "functionally different" and "are
to be connected" and agreed to consider developing positive
text to eliminate the double negative in the decontrol note.
There was no tour de table on this proposal.


E. 3.B.1.i. Control on Masks for IC. JP003. This proposal
met considerable resistance. Russia said this was a
considerable expansion of the current controls. Korea said
that it was not the proper way to address this issue. In a
bilateral meeting with the USDEL, the Japanese delegation
stressed that Japan was looking for consistency in its
approach to mask controls. Belgium, France, Korea, Russia
and the U.S. are on study reserve for this proposal.


F. 3.B.3. Integrated Circuit Editing Tools. US011. The
Netherlands circulated a non-paper, WA-EG (09) NL002 in
response to US011. The Dutch delegation acknowledged the
concern presented in US011, but said there are practical
concerns with using dual-beam systems for reverse engineering
(i.e., it might take more than 9 months to analyze one chip).
The Dutch delegation also said there are more efficient ways
of removing layers from an integrated circuit and that with a
dual-beam system it is difficult to get gas into the system.
Therefore a single beam system might work better. In a
similar vein, the Korean delegation said that it had concerns
about the misuse of equipment (i.e., for reverse
engineering),but was also concerned about controlling more
than is necessary. USDEL conducted separate bilateral
meetings with both the Dutch and Japanese delegations on this
topic. The bilateral meeting with Japan will be described
below. With the Dutch delegation, USDEL pointed out that
there was an error in the calculations presented by the
Dutch. By the U.S. calculations, it would take a month to a
month and a half rather than the nine months indicated by
NL002 to examine a chip. USDEL promised to provide a
response to the other points raised by the Dutch. Belgium,
France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Great Britain, the
Netherlands, Russia and Sweden are on study reserve for this
proposal.


G. 3.B.3. Integrated Circuit Editing Tools. JP007. USDEL
conducted a bilateral discussion with the Japanese delegation
on our competing proposals. The Japanese thought that the
U.S. proposal did not go far enough in catching machines that
were capable of reverse engineering. However, the Japanese
delegation also noted that they would not control the
Japanese products that the U.S. showed to illustrate the type
of equipment that the U.S. thought would be caught by US011.
The Japanese delegation said that they did not believe that
the Japanese products were capable of editing. To reinforce
that point, JP007 contains a local definition of
"integrated-circuit editing equipment" to ensure that the
Japanese equipment would not be caught. There was no tour de
table on JP007. The Japanese delegation said that they would
review its proposal based on what it had heard during the EG.


19. (SBU) CAT 4 (computers) proposals still under
consideration:


A. 4.A.1.b. & 4.D.3. Deletion of 4.A.1.b. & 4.D.3. CA004.
Several countries questioned the deletion of these entries.
Finland, Germany and Japan are on study reserve. Korea is on
favorable study reserve. Australia, Belgium, Denmark,
France, the UK, Norway, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the
U.S. support CA004.


B. 4.A.3.g. Revision of External Interconnects. US004. Japan
and the UK raised questions about the meaning of "closely
couple." The UK said that it was still looking for a way to
simplify the language. Japan and the UK are on study
reserve. Canada is on favorable study reserve.


C. 4.D.3. Medical decontrol for 4.D.3. and 5.A.2. Note.

GB003. USDEL registered concerns about adding software
decontrols to the medical equipment exemption and noted that
it thought that the adoption of the U.S. proposal on
ancillary encryption might solve the UK's problem. USDEL
said that it would work with the UK on this issue. Canada
and the U.S. are on study reserve. Germany is on favorable
study reserve. The 5.A.2. portion of this proposal that
would decontrol specially designed medical equipment that
employs cryptography received general support from Encryption
TWG participants. This TWG discussion focused on whether the
proposal needs to read 'equipment and components' (rather
than simply 'equipment') in order to achieve the intended
decontrol of embedded operating system encryption libraries
and other components. On the 5.A.2. portion of the proposal,
Belgium, Finland, France, Norway and the U.S. are in support.
Canada is on study reserve. Germany and Sweden are on
favorable study reserve. Pending the outcome of discussion
in the Encryption TWG, this portion of the proposal may be
unnecessary if the U.S. ancillary encryption proposal (US003)
is agreed.


20. (SBU) CAT 5 Part 1 (telecommunications) proposal still
under consideration:


A. 5.A.1.i. Control of real time virtual radars. FR007.
While countries were generally sympathetic to the French
desire to control this equipment, many expressed the concern
that the language was very broad. Germany asked specifically
to see data sheets for the type of equipment that France
intended to control. It might be possible to tighten up the
text by reference to actual performance specifications.
Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, Russia and the U.S. are on
study reserve. France promised to review its proposal,
provide data sheets and would consider a revision based on
comments made during the EG.


21. (SBU) CAT 5 Part 2 (encryption) proposals still under
consideration:


A. 5.A.2. Note 4. Ancillary Encryption. US003. This
proposal has become the basis for further work in the
Encryption TWG. The broad view among the Encryption TWG was
the wording of US003 needs to be made more clear and specific
for implementation to be consistent among Participating
States. Several states raised concerns regarding the
possible decontrol of certain maritime vessel tracking
systems (VTS) and of networked security cameras. The TWG
spent considerable time discussing the desired scope of the
proposal, and working on possible new wording. This work
will continue during the intersessional meetings.


B. 5.A.2.a. Clarification of specially designed components.
CA005. The Encryption TWG offered alternative wording to
CA005. Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the UK,
Sweden, and the U.S. are on study reserve. With respect to
the TWG alternative text, Australia, Denmark, Finland,
France, Japan, Korea, the UK, Sweden and the U.S. are on
favorable study reserve and Germany supports the text.
Canada agreed to reconsider its proposal and possibly revise
it.


C. 5.A.2. Note a. Personalised Smart Cards. JP004. This
proposal was extensively discussed in the Encryption TWG,
with several states expressing strong interest in retaining
existing C5P2 controls on reprogrammable smart cards. Japan
will reconsider its proposal and possibly revise it. Whether
or not Japan carries it forward will depend to some extent on
the outcome of discussion in the TWG based on US003, which
would decontrol most non-reprogrammable smart cards suggested
by JP004. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the
UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.S. are on study
reserve. Germany and Korea are on favorable study reserve.


D. 5.A.2. Note a. Improved decontrol text. CA009. Concerns
were raised in the Encryption TWG that CA009 might be too
broad and would decontrol items that some states want under
control. U.S. and several other states posed technical
questions seeking a better understanding of the proposal.
After discussion, the Encryption TWG did not see CA009 to be
as promising as US003 as a means of meeting the Plenary
mandate to simplify the decontrols in 5.A.2. There was no
tour de table on this proposal. Canada agreed to suspend
discussion of CA009 pending the outcome of discussion of
other 5.A.2. proposals during the intersessional meetings.


22. (SBU) CAT 6 (sensors and lasers) proposals still under
consideration:


A. 6.A.1.a.1.a. Clarification of Bathymetric Survey
Systems. GB001. USDEL expressed concerns that in trying to
close one loophole the UK may be opening another. The UK
thereby undertook to revise this proposal. There was no tour
de table on GB001.


B. 6.A.1.c. Diver Detection Systems. GB002. This proposal
was taken up by an informal working group that considered
both GB002 and JP008. The working group produced greatly
simplified text in WA-EG (09) TWG 011. The UK subsequently
withdrew GB002 in favor of the text in TWG 011. Germany,
Japan, Korea, the UK, Norway, Russia, and the U.S. are on
study reserve for the TWG text. Canada is on favorable study
reserve. Additional work will be done on this issue during
the intersessional meetings.


C. 6.A.1.c. Diver Detection Systems. JP008. This proposal
was also addressed in the informal working group on diver
detection systems. Whereas GB002 was aimed at controlling
individual sonar-based systems, JP008 is focused on sonar
networks. There was no tour de table on JP008. Additional
work will be done on this proposal during the intersessional
meetings.


D. 6.A.2. Nota Bene. Clarifying the control status of
optical sensors. JP005. This proposal was addressed in the
LLL TWG. See paragraph 7 above. Japan will consider the
information provided by the LLL TWG in deciding whether to
proceed further with this proposal. There was no tour de
table on JP005.


E. 6.A.3. Nota Bene. Controlling certain underwater cameras.
JP006. This proposal was addressed in the LLL TWG. See
paragraph 7 above. The issue of how to handle cameras that
are potentially subject to control in both Category 6 and
Category 8 will be further addressed in the intersessional
meeting of the LLL TWG. There was no tour de table on JP006.


F. 6.A.3.b.2. Revised Control for Scanning Cameras. DE001.
Based on discussion in the LLL TWG, Germany plans to revise
DE001. Germany will look for some other parmeter than
altitude to decontrol scanning camera that are not of
concern. There was no tour de tble on DE001.


G. 6.A.5.d.1.d. Semiconductor Laer Stacked Array Power
Density. US019. US019 ws addressed in an informal working
group. The rsults of these discussions are recorded in
WA-EG(09) TWG 008 and TWG 012. The U.S. agreed to issuea
revised proposal based on the results of thesediscussions.
Japan was insistent on adding contrls for an array stack
that is a component. Thiscould be done either through a
technical note orby adding components to the chapeau of the
contro. Comment: Prior to the EG, the U.S. had not
cosidered this to be a pressing issue, as these item are
still under U.S. development. During the wrking the group,
the U.S. offered to withdraw th text and revisit the issue
in the future. Japanse insistence on dealing with this
issue may indcate that Japanese development is farther along
han current U.S. development. End comment. Therewas no
tour de table on this proposal. The U.S.has agreed to chair
an intersessional meeting to o additional work on this
proposal.


H. 6.A.8.. Clarification of controls on radar systems.
CA007. USDEL raised concerns about the use of the term "real
time", expressing a desire to see an actual time parameter.
Canada, after conferring bilaterally with the U.S., agreed to
consider revising its proposal. Italy, the UK and the U.S.
are on study reserve on CA007. Australia supports CA007.


23. (SBU) CAT 7 (Navigation and Avionics). One proposal is
still under consideration:


A. 7.A.7. Unmanned Vehicle Conversion Systems and Software.
US023. The presentation by the USDEL elicited a favorable
response from most of the delegations who spoke on this
proposal. The views of delegations are quite varied from
preferring to expand the U.S. proposal to others expressing
concern that it may be too broad. There is reservation with
the wording in the Technical Note. Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Korea, the UK, Russia and Sweden are on study reserve.
Japan is on favorable study reserve. The U.S. has agreed to

chaira working group on this topic during the intersessonal
meetings.


24. (SBU) CAT 9 (Propulsion). One proposal is still under
consideration:

A.9.E.3.a.9. Modification of FADEC controls. GB012. The
UK offered a presentation by representative from Rolls Royce
to explain GB012. Work was cotinued in an informal working
group. The result of that work can be found in WA-EG (09)
TWG 005 While attempts were made to clarify the currentcontrol text,
this issue still needs considerable ork.
There was no tour de table on this proposal The UK has
agreed to chair an intersessional wrking group on this topic.


25. (SBU) ML proposas still under consideration:


A. ML5. c. Detectio Equipment for ML5.a. and ML5.b. GB004.
USDEL tied to convince the UK delegation that the additio
to ML5.c. was unnecessary and might actually mae the text
less clear. Germany, Poland, Sweden nd the U.S. are on
study reserve.


B. ML6. 9, ad 10. Adding common military missions to the
cotrol text for ground vehicles, vessels and aircraf.
FR006 Rev 1. This proposal was referred to aninformal
working group. Based on that work, Frace issued a revised
proposal. A number of delegaions continue to express
concern about the broadscope of this proposal and question
whether it povides any clarity to the current text.
Australi, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Korea, the UK,
Sweden and the U.S. are on study reserve. France ill chair
intersessional meetings on this topic.


C. ML8. Specially designed explosives, propelents and
pyrotechnics. GB005 Rev 1. Based on US. comments, the UK
revised GB005. Germany adde a caveat to the revised text.
Germany can suppor the text if "not specified in ML8" is
deleted fom the Note. Canada, Russia and the U.S. are onstudy reserve.


D. ML8. 34.b. Text Clarificatio. GB010. Only Japan remains
on study reserve fo the ML8. 34.b. portion of GB010.
Australia, Frane, Korea, Sweden and the U.S. support this
clariication.


E. ML8.e.6. Text Clarification. GB01. Only the U.S.
remains on study reserve for te clarification in ML8.e.6.
Canada, Germany and rance support this portion of GB011.


F. ML10.h. implification of control entries for parachutes.GB006. Several countries requested more time to cnsider
whether the proposed clarification actualy improves the
current text. Canada, France, Gemany and the U.S. are on
study reserve.


G. ML1 and 1.A.5. Armour protective equipment clarificaton.
FR003 Rev 1 and GB013. These two proposalsare mutually
exclusive and there does not seem t be any way to reach a
compromise. The current ext does not specify the level of
protection requred to meet the controls, leaving that
decision o national discretion. National practices differ.
French practices are similar to those of the U.S The UK
argues that accepting the French proposl would require it to
rewrite its domestic contros on body armor. German national
practices are imilar to those of the UK. Canada, Germany,
Itay, the UK, Russia, Sweden and the U.S. are on stud
reserve for the ML13 portion of FR003 Rev 1. Cnada, France,
Italy, Russia and the U.S. are on sudy reserve for the ML13
portion of GB013.


H. ML17. p. Fuel Cells Specially Designed or Modified for
Military Use. US007 Rev 1. Several delegations expressed
concern about the scope of this proposal. USDEL chaired an
informal working group to revise the definition of a "fuel
cell" after several alternatives to the U.S. text were
offered. Based on the results of that working group, USDEL
issued a revised text with a slightly modified definition.
The UK has withdrawn its alternative definition, but a Korean
alternative that closely tracks with the revised U.S.
definition remains on the table. There are lingering
concerns about what constitutes a fuel cell specially
designed or modified for military use. Japan voiced special
concerns in this regard in bilateral consultations with the
USDEL. USDEL pointed out that dual-use fuel cells that the

military chose to acquire would not be controlled by this
text; only those fuel cells that had been designed or
modified to meet military specifications. Canada, Japan,
Korea, the UK and Sweden are on study reserve. France is on
favorable study reserve.

PYATT