Hi Bob (N4HY)
Thanks for taking the time to ponder for the BB and me some of the twists and turns of ITAR issues.
I hope the BB apprecaites your time and effort. Here are a few more questions?
8.) How do exclusionary zones with in the US work as in the AO-40 integration and shipping zone, as it relates to ITAR? 9.) How does Amsat-NA insure ITAR security among it's own engineering staff? 10.) Does the German Government have ITAR like laws for the AMSAT-DL folks to follow? 11.) Are there any ITAR shipping limitation involved as to methods and ports?
Global is getting to mean many things it would appear.
Thanks you sir, when you get more spare time .
Regards
Joe Murray K0VTY
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:18:52 -0400 Bob McGwier rwmcgwier@gmail.com writes:
k0vty@juno.com wrote:
Greetings All:
The Amsat BB is a great source of information we all know: I have a few questions about ITAR that I thought might interest
more than
I. I tried to be careful of the words I used.
1.) Do all launched satellites that have US components or
interests fall
under ITAR?
Yes
2.) When does ITAR interest begin for a launchable Amateur
satellite?
The minute you wish to discuss what is in it with someone who is not a US national or want to ship the thing overseas for launch.
3.) Is software and firmware that is a part of a Amateur satellite
at
launch fall under ITAR?
Most definitely
4.) Who normally handles University Cube Sat ITAR issues when
Amateur
frequencies are used?
Depends on who is going to do the launch but Cal Poly has been involved for sure.
5.) Who normally handles US Military school Cube-Sat ITAR issues
when
Amateur frequencies are use ?
U.S. government entities have a form of an exemption because they are a component of the U.S. government (and not a for profit company which
might be tempted to sell intellectual property to the highest bidder) and those equities are handled differently. Even then, ITAR only comes into play if non-U.S. citizens are involved in the program and/or an
overseas launch is envisioned.
6.) When is there no ITAR interest in a Amateur satellite?
There is interest. That is what is causing us so much grief. It has effectively ended the participation of AMSAT-NA in Phase 3E.
7.) Did Suitsat one or two (ARISSaT-1) have any ITAR problems
since they
are satellites using Amateur frequency?
NASA is able to work through different channels than AMSAT has to in
order to get things launched to the space station. AMSAT-NA will be
responsible for ALL transfer of components for ARISSat 1 to the launch site. We might get assistance from some places in the government but it will be handled as an export request and we will have to show how we will protect the equities that need protecting under ITAR.
I have more ITAR related questions.
Best Regards
Joe K0VTY
ANY aspect dealing with a satellite, software, hardware, ground stations (hardware, software, protocols, etc.), ideas, random ejaculations from a diseased mind or whatever that deals with spacecraft or ground stations are DEEMED EXPORTS when they depart a U.S. citizen and are delivered to a non-U.S. citizen. It is a nearly impossible task to abide by and one that really makes me want to throw my hands up in despair and walk away.
There are exceptions for classrooms and courses taught in U.S. university's. A person, even a non-U.S. citizen, who can pay for taking a course, may go and involve themselves in course work, even if it is dealing with the design, construction, and control of spacecraft during the course work. Some of this applies to your earlier questions but for US service academies, there are very few non-U.S. citizens in them.
Bob N4HY
-- (Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "You don't need to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.", MLK. Twitter:rwmcgwier Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn
____________________________________________________________ Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMerseM6huiwDg7vZAreaZevOq...
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM, k0vty@juno.com wrote:
Hi Bob (N4HY)
Thanks for taking the time to ponder for the BB and me some of the twists and turns of ITAR issues.
I hope the BB apprecaites your time and effort. Here are a few more questions?
I have a further question, if I may, and Bob needn't feel obliged to answer it.
Given that AMSAT-NA is by definition a collaboration between amateurs on both sides of the US/Canada border, do we have a clear idea where ITAR stands with respect to Canadian collaborators? I know that in 1999 the previous exemption was revoked, but that in 2001 there were some changes again.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
Bruce Robertson wrote:
Given that AMSAT-NA is by definition a collaboration between amateurs on both sides of the US/Canada border, do we have a clear idea where ITAR stands with respect to Canadian collaborators? I know that in 1999 the previous exemption was revoked, but that in 2001 there were some changes again.
To the best of my knowledge, Canada holds no special status with regard to ITAR.
Consider ITAR to be a "goods and information diode": Canada can sell space technology to an American company and can provide information. However, the American company cannot describe their application in detail or send any information North of the border without a Technical Assistance Agreement in place between the particular organizations. And US export permits are needed to send space technology to Canada.
Furthermore, if a Canadian company wishes to use US technology on a Canadian satellite and then launch with foreign launcher, the country from which the launch takes place must also be specified (and approved) on the US Export Permit. The US State department must be satisfied that all precautions are being taken to protect the technology when it is in a foreign country.
Canada does have its own restrictions for space technology under the Controlled Goods Program legislated by the Defence Production Act. And export permits are needed when sending space technology outside of the country. The process, however, is far less onerous than ITAR. Details on the Canadian system can be found at http://www.ssi-iss.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/dmc-cgd/apropos-about/apercu-overview-e...
73, -Daniel, VA3KKZ
Thank-you, Daniel for this helpful reply. Your 'diode' analogy was excellent.
Using the links provided by Samudra above, I was able to find some parts of ITAR that exempt Canada. Specifically, 126.5(b), which in turn has restrictions on *it* in the following passages. One of these restrictions is on "all spacecraft in category XV(a) except commercial satellites". This is a bit frustrating, since it seems likely that the regulation means by 'commercial satellites' 'satellites with no national security implications'; but for we amateurs, if we read the letter of the law, 'commercial' excludes us as an apparent side-effect.
I fully admit that I might have misunderstood the regulations, since they are, quite appropriately, written in a particular sub-dialect of legal language. Obviously any speculation on this list is no substitution for the professional opinion of a lawyer.
Finally, let me say that I really appreciate the board tackling this issue so directly. It must seem pretty tangential to the corp's larger project, and I know if I were in their shoes I'd find it rather frustrating work.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Daniel Kekez va3kkz@amsat.org wrote:
Bruce Robertson wrote:
Given that AMSAT-NA is by definition a collaboration between amateurs on both sides of the US/Canada border, do we have a clear idea where ITAR stands with respect to Canadian collaborators? I know that in 1999 the previous exemption was revoked, but that in 2001 there were some changes again.
To the best of my knowledge, Canada holds no special status with regard to ITAR.
Consider ITAR to be a "goods and information diode": Canada can sell space technology to an American company and can provide information. However, the American company cannot describe their application in detail or send any information North of the border without a Technical Assistance Agreement in place between the particular organizations. And US export permits are needed to send space technology to Canada.
Furthermore, if a Canadian company wishes to use US technology on a Canadian satellite and then launch with foreign launcher, the country from which the launch takes place must also be specified (and approved) on the US Export Permit. The US State department must be satisfied that all precautions are being taken to protect the technology when it is in a foreign country.
Canada does have its own restrictions for space technology under the Controlled Goods Program legislated by the Defence Production Act. And export permits are needed when sending space technology outside of the country. The process, however, is far less onerous than ITAR. Details on the Canadian system can be found at http://www.ssi-iss.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/dmc-cgd/apropos-about/apercu-overview-e...
73, -Daniel, VA3KKZ
Bruce Robertson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM, k0vty@juno.com wrote:
Hi Bob (N4HY)
Thanks for taking the time to ponder for the BB and me some of the twists and turns of ITAR issues.
I hope the BB apprecaites your time and effort. Here are a few more questions?
I have a further question, if I may, and Bob needn't feel obliged to answer it.
Given that AMSAT-NA is by definition a collaboration between amateurs on both sides of the US/Canada border, do we have a clear idea where ITAR stands with respect to Canadian collaborators? I know that in 1999 the previous exemption was revoked, but that in 2001 there were some changes again.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
Working with Candians and discussing satellites is a deemed export and must be treated as a munition transfer even between Canadians and Americans. We need a technical assistance agreement with our Canadian brethren in amateur satellite service work. The tough part for this is that we really need to work out the technical assistance agreement with an umbrella organization for our Canadian colleagues to be legal or be granted a specific exemption or work out the agreements with individuals. Since Canadians are members of AMSAT-NA what organization could easily serve this role? What individual would do this on their own without an umbrella group over them? You have to agree to go to a federal prison or pay a ridiculous fine if you violate this as an individual. Who would expose themselves to this?
If I sound overly negative about ITAR that is simple. I am truly negative about its application to amateur radio satellites with an open door and publication policy on what we are doing in a not-for-profit mode as a 501c3 educational organization. If I were to work on a DOD satellite, I would expect to keep my mouth shut or go to prison. I have no trouble at all distinguishing the difference. ITAR and the amateur radio and amateur satellite services are confounded in paranoia built in a time when the Soviet Union existed and thank goodness those days are over. But what has resulted is a new set of boogie men to take their place and it being even harder to see how amateur radio satellites contribute to their evil insidious plots against us!
I am unconvinced that even trying to stop commercial companies from discussing the technology used in their satellites for non-defense purposes serves a serious security need for the U.S. since I believe all of the serious potential adversaries on our radar have developed rockets, spacecraft, weaponized warheads on the rockets, and more and ITAR did NOTHING to prevent it except for a delaying action that allowed the potential adversaries to build their own independent means but for these purposes, getting the shackles off the ankles of amateur radio, I don't care about this argument. My primary argument is that it makes absolutely no sense to stop AMSAT-NA, AMSAT-UK, and AMSAT-DL and AMSAT-ZL and AMSAT-VK ..... from talking things over to make rational decisions.
More than one of these entities just mentioned is trapped in a dilemma for their programs posed by ITAR because we cannot help them without an onerous agreement they are unwilling to sign up to.
Bob N4HY
Bob, Bruce et. al.,
This is probably a very reasonable thread of discussion to follow, compared to other snippy comments/jibes/frivolous remarks that I have seen on amsat-bb recently. I have started up a separate private thread to allow us to discuss a managed bulletin board to supplement the open mailing list to accomodate:
+ potential need to have a closed community of registered members discussing itar-covered topics
+ a searchable archive of topics, posts that users can leave in the archive on a permanent basis and stop repeating ad nauseum
+ optional open-forums and closed-forums depending upon the affiliation of a particular member. An example of this is the IEEE, which as an organization provides the IEEE scanner publication to all, but only the referred journals/publications to members who are part of a particular society. So, if you not a member of the AESS society, you won't get the AESS Journal, but you may become a member (of your choice) of any society that you wish. In my analog, amsat-bb will and should be open for general users not involved in satops, satengg, mission planning, but only using it as a hobby. Separately, if there was an amsat-engineering or some other forum should in my opinion only be open to those that have agreed to sign a volunteering agreement with AMSAT agreeing to comply with a written policy, that is inclusive of the ITAR regs for "U.S. Persons".
+ The key issue of course is that in the U.S.A, we must be in compliance with all laws, and those "Federal" laws trump individual association/non-profit laws that one may think of.
That said, I would like to submit to the amsat-bod through amsat-bb (Hey, I don't have access, I am a newbie!)
Have you looked at: http://www.research.ucla.edu/researchpol/memos/Memo_Ofac.htm and considered the implications of adopting a restatement of our bye-laws to reflect our current role as a fundamental research institution in amateur space systems and potentially amateur rocketry as well ?
I urge all to review THIRD (A, B, F, G) once again from http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/AboutAmsat/documents/bylaws.php
But more importantly, Bob, or any other competent amsat member, we must spend the time to read ourselves thoroughly http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/22cfr121.1.htm that might offer the chance to request a WAIVER. The reason for this would be based upon the following question:
Why should AMSAT Satellites with clearly defined specifications be considered as SME (Significant Military Equipment) given that they follow ARRL/IARU/ITU spec for frequency, and their systems are composed of all non-military sourced components ? If there is an opportunity to expand on this in a formal working group for AMSAT, sign me up please !
I am not minimizing the effect of ITAR regs on foreign co-operation, those will obviously have to be developed under a restricted TAA (Tech Asst. Agreement) but perhaps this would be good in a way as it would force AMSAT-NA to focus on increasing membership of domestic U.S. persons and build satellites that are designed using local talent (implying educating U.S. youth using mature workforce). Also, ITAR now implies unrestricted publication of data/articles for ITAR covered subjects are also restricted, even for a TAA: http://portal.research.colostate.edu/itar/Export_Control_Brief.ppt
I quote: {please note, I am only copying, but do not know if this is the current and valid version from congress ?}
Category XV--Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment
* (a) Spacecraft, including communications satellites, remote sensing satellites, scientific satellites, research satellites, navigation satellites, experimental and multi-mission satellites.
* Note to paragraph (a): Commercial communications satellites, scientific satellites, research satellites and experimental satellites are designated as SME only when the equipment is intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country.
(b) Ground control stations for telemetry, tracking and control of spacecraft or satellites, or employing any of the cryptographic items controlled under category XIII of this subchapter. (c) Global Positioning System (GPS) receiving equipment specifically designed, modified or configured for military use; or GPS receiving equipment with any of the following characteristics: (1) Designed for encryption or decryption (e.g., Y-Code) of GPS precise positioning service (PPS) signals; (2) Designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater; (3) Specifically designed or modified for use with a null steering antenna or including a null steering antenna designed to reduce or avoid jamming signals; (4) Designed or modified for use with unmanned air vehicle systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km. Note: GPS receivers designed or modified for use with military unmanned air vehicle systems with less capability are considered to be specifically designed, modified or configured for military use and therefore covered under this paragraph (d)(4).) Any GPS equipment not meeting this definition is subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce (DOC). Manufacturers or exporters of equipment under DOC jurisdiction are advised that the U.S. Government does not assure the availability of the GPS P-Code for civil navigation. It is the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) that GPS receivers using P-Code without clarification as to whether or not those receivers were designed or modified to use Y-Code will be presumed to be Y-Code capable and covered under this paragraph. The DOD policy further requires that a notice be attached to all P-Code receivers presented for export. The notice must state the following: ``ADVISORY NOTICE: This receiver uses the GPS P-Code signal, which by U.S. policy, may be switched off without notice.'' (d) Radiation-hardened microelectronic circuits that meet or exceed all five of the following characteristics: (1) A total dose of 5x105 Rads (SI); (2) A dose rate upset of 5x108 Rads (SI)/Sec; (3) A neutron dose of 1x1014 N/cm2; (4) A single event upset of 1x10-7 or less error/bit/day; (5) Single event latch-up free and having a dose rate latch-up of 5x108 Rads(SI)/sec or greater.
[[Page 433]]
(e) All specifically designed or modified systems, components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for the articles in this category, including the articles identified in Sec. 1516 of Public Law 105-261: satellite fuel, ground support equipment, test equipment, payload adapter or interface hardware, replacement parts, and non-embedded solid propellant orbit transfer engines (see also categories IV and V). (f) Technical data (as defined in Sec. 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in Sec. 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this category, as well as detailed design, development, manufacturing or production data for all spacecraft and specifically designed or modified components for all spacecraft systems. This paragraph includes all technical data, without exception, for all launch support activities (e.g., technical data provided to the launch provider on form, fit, function, mass, electrical, mechanical, dynamic, environmental, telemetry, safety, facility, launch pad access, and launch parameters, as well as interfaces for mating and parameters for launch.) (See Sec. 124.1 for the requirements for technical assistance agreements before defense services may be furnished even when all the information relied upon by the U.S. person in performing the defense service is in the public domain or is otherwise exempt from the licensing requirements of this subchapter.) Technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of any article enumerated elsewhere in this category that is designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself be designated SME. Further, technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of all spacecraft, notwithstanding the nature of the intended end use (e.g., even where the hardware is not SME), is designated SME.
Note to paragraph (f): The special export controls contained in Sec. 124.15 of this subchapter are always required before a U.S. person may participate in a launch failure investigation or analysis and before the export of any article or defense service in this category for launch in, or by nationals of, a country that is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Such special export controls also may be imposed with respect to any destination as deemed appropriate in furtherance of the security and foreign policy of the United States.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Bob McGwier rwmcgwier@gmail.com wro
Bruce Robertson wrote:ha
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM, k0vty@juno.com wrote:
Hi Bob (N4HY)
Thanks for taking the time to ponder for the BB and me some of the twists and turns of ITAR issues.
I hope the BB apprecaites your time and effort. Here are a few more questions?
I have a further question, if I may, and Bob needn't feel obliged to answer it.
Given that AMSAT-NA is by definition a collaboration between amateurs on both sides of the US/Canada border, do we have a clear idea where ITAR stands with respect to Canadian collaborators? I know that in 1999 the previous exemption was revoked, but that in 2001 there were some changes again.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
Working with Candians and discussing satellites is a deemed export and must be treated as a munition transfer even between Canadians and Americans. We need a technical assistance agreement with our Canadian brethren in amateur satellite service work. The tough part for this is that we really need to work out the technical assistance agreement with an umbrella organization for our Canadian colleagues to be legal or be granted a specific exemption or work out the agreements with individuals. Since Canadians are members of AMSAT-NA what organization could easily serve this role? What individual would do this on their own without an umbrella group over them? You have to agree to go to a federal prison or pay a ridiculous fine if you violate this as an individual. Who would expose themselves to this?
If I sound overly negative about ITAR that is simple. I am truly negative about its application to amateur radio satellites with an open door and publication policy on what we are doing in a not-for-profit mode as a 501c3 educational organization. If I were to work on a DOD satellite, I would expect to keep my mouth shut or go to prison. I have no trouble at all distinguishing the difference. ITAR and the amateur radio and amateur satellite services are confounded in paranoia built in a time when the Soviet Union existed and thank goodness those days are over. But what has resulted is a new set of boogie men to take their place and it being even harder to see how amateur radio satellites contribute to their evil insidious plots against us!
I am unconvinced that even trying to stop commercial companies from discussing the technology used in their satellites for non-defense purposes serves a serious security need for the U.S. since I believe all of the serious potential adversaries on our radar have developed rockets, spacecraft, weaponized warheads on the rockets, and more and ITAR did NOTHING to prevent it except for a delaying action that allowed the potential adversaries to build their own independent means but for these purposes, getting the shackles off the ankles of amateur radio, I don't care about this argument. My primary argument is that it makes absolutely no sense to stop AMSAT-NA, AMSAT-UK, and AMSAT-DL and AMSAT-ZL and AMSAT-VK ..... from talking things over to make rational decisions.
More than one of these entities just mentioned is trapped in a dilemma for their programs posed by ITAR because we cannot help them without an onerous agreement they are unwilling to sign up to.
Bob N4HY
-- (Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "You don't need to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.", MLK. Twitter:rwmcgwier Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
k0vty@juno.com wrote:
Hi Bob (N4HY)
Thanks for taking the time to ponder for the BB and me some of the twists and turns of ITAR issues.
I hope the BB apprecaites your time and effort. Here are a few more questions?
8.) How do exclusionary zones with in the US work as in the AO-40 integration and shipping zone, as it relates to ITAR?
These deal only with tariffs, taxation, etc. As soon as you move a piece of electronics from outside any such zone into that zone with the purpose being to do any export or even a DEEMED export, it is covered.
9.) How does Amsat-NA insure ITAR security among it's own engineering staff?
After our MEA CULPA to the state department, we are being instructed on how to comply and every person working with us will be subjected to the treatment, err uhh, training.
10.) Does the German Government have ITAR like laws for the AMSAT-DL folks to follow?
They have export control laws as do all governments. Germans are by their nature (from my experience) rule abiding law followers and do not want to sign documents exposing themselves to onerous restrictions. So far as I know, they do not force foreign citizens (non-Germans) to sign a document that says for the purposes of the satellite exercise, it doesn't matter where in the world you are, or even if it is illegal for you to sign such a document in your own country, you will agree you are subject to German law. The chutzpah involved in such a set of rules on our part is almost too much to wrap your mind around, especially applied to amateur radio satellites since these rules interfere with the purpose of amateur radio world wide.
11.) Are there any ITAR shipping limitation involved as to methods and ports?
I do not understand what this means.
Global is getting to mean many things it would appear.
Thanks you sir, when you get more spare time .
Regards
Joe Murray K0VTY
participants (5)
-
Bob McGwier -
Bruce Robertson -
Daniel Kekez -
k0vty＠juno.com -
Samudra Haque