BIS to Request Input on US-EU Export Control Discrepancies
The Bureau of Industry and Security will soon request feedback from industry, academia and others on key differences in U.S. and EU interpretations of export control provisions, said Charles Wall, BIS’ senior policy adviser for the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council. Wall, speaking during a BIS technical advisory committee meeting this week, said the notice will ask for “very specific information” on discrepancies between the two territories' export control regimes and ways those rules can be harmonized.
During a recent trip to Europe, Wall said he learned the EU interprets a certain Export Control Classification Number in category three of the Commerce Control List “a little bit differently than we do,” and officials have “had some dialogue about how we should interpret that specific provision.”
Wall said he hopes BIS’ request for information helps the U.S. and the EU coordinate better “and maybe issue some joint [frequently asked questions] or interpretive guidance so that we interpret it the same from now on.”
The agency’s Regulations and Procedures TAC was told by an EU trade policy group official last year that Europe has a “very ancient view” of intangible transfers compared with the U.S. (see 2206150038). EU companies also want to rein in the U.S.’ “extensive application” of its export controls, better align U.S. and EU export licensing and harmonize other export regulations (see 2212090026).
One RPTAC member this week suggested the U.S. and the EU tackle differences among 600 series items, which include defense and dual-use items overseen by BIS that were previously controlled under the State Department’s U.S. Munitions List. As part of its export control reform initiative, the U.S. transferred those 600 series items to Commerce to lift certain restrictions, and some industry officials have asked the EU to take a similar approach (see 2112010015).
Wall said he is “not aware of any specific dialogue” on 600 series items within the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC), but he said companies should mention it in their public comments to BIS once the agency releases its request for information. “That seems like a big project but one that maybe, especially if we had a focus area to start with, that might be a good thing to submit comments on,” he said.
Wall also said the U.S. and the EU are open to addressing issues arising from redundant license applications. An RPTAC member said some clients that “straddle the EU and the United States” often have to request similar export authorizations from both jurisdictions.
“If you have good ideas for that, I think we'd love to hear them, because I think that is of interest,” Wall said. “We don’t want to have double licensing requirements.”
But for the TTC to make progress around the issue, the council needs “very specific ideas,” he said. “What I’ve found is, a lot of times we come up with these ideas in the TTC and then when we start talking about them, but it quickly spirals into this very complicated thing and it becomes hard to get to the finish line.”
He said the TTC’s Export Control Working Group will have another meeting “soon, probably in the next few months,” and plans to continue outreach efforts with exporters. The council in November spoke with the Association of University Export Compliance Officers and the “EU equivalent,” Wall said, where they discussed ways the U.S. “interprets the concept of fundamental research a little bit differently than the EU does.”
“I think part of this effort of sharing information repeatedly has really inspired me personally to try and understand better how the EU system works, but it's a slow process,” he said. “I think the key is making sure we have an aligned policy.”