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 
 
¶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