COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM 1529 - ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS 2ND AND 8TH DECEMBER, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100060048-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 1998
• Sequence Number: 48
• Publication Date: December 28, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

go Approvedr Releas
December 28th, 1959
4.3. 46
l /ij? r y
62-00647A"0100060048-4
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
ITEM 1529 - ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS
2nd and 8tn December 1 12
Present: Belgium (Luxembourg), Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM Documents Nos. 3700.1, .2, .3 and .5, 3715.00/1,
3715.29/1, 1n1-P.1521)/2. and Corrigendum, 14.P.1529/2.
1. The FRENCH Delegate stated that the text of the definition of Item
1529 as sot cut in COCOM Document No. 3715.29/1 seemed too general and in
his view was likely to give trouble to departments administering the
control system. Moreover, referring to the Note which had been added
to sub-item (a) the Delegate proposed that details should be given of
the agreed understanding as to the "reasonable quantities etc." which
might be exported. If that were impossible, he suggested that this
Note should be deleted entirely.
2. The UNITED STATES Delegate, with reference to his.French colleague's
last point, recalled that he had only accepted this Note ad referendum.
3. The NETHERLANDS De1.ogato associated himself with his French
c:olloaguo?s remarks and stressed furthermore that in meetings now being
held the C.C.I.T. was considering changes of frequency cut-offs for
bandwidths used in'television.
The GERMAN Delegate stated that his Delegation would have no
objection to the deletion of the Note concerned.
The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that his authorities had
ondoavoured to draw up a list of measuring, testing or calibrating
instruments used ohly for teleiasion, and that the task had quickly
proved impossible.
6. The COMMITTEE agreed to delete the Note appearing in ,sub-item
(a) of the definition set out in COCOM Document No. 3715.29/1.
7. Commenting further on the statement he had made at the start
of the debate, the FRENCH Delegate repeated that it was extremely
inconvenient for control departments to be faced with vague expressions.
The Delegate referred to the case of voltmeters, which, although not
mentioned by name in the Lists, were nevertheless covered by the embargo.
He stated that, in the French Delegation's view, the best solution would
be complete deletion of this item or, failing that, the establishment of
a list of the instruments which it was desired to keep under embargo.
8. The UNITED STATES Delegate stated that any change in definition
required some clarification for the public, so as to avoid misunderstanding.
This problem had been solved in the United States by means of announcements
published in specialised periodicals.
9. The FRENCH Delegate, in reply to his United Statea colleague, said
that owing to the fact that in France changes affecting the International
Lists were published in the Official Journal, it was somewhat difficult to
have modifications inserted therein too frequently.
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100060048-4
 Approved liar Release : CIA-RDP62-00647AW0100060048-4
S E C R E T - 2 - COCOA M Document No: 3715.2,2E
10. The GERMAN Delegate proposed the drawing up of a Note giving an il-
lustrative list. He reminded the Committee that in 1958, when Item 1529
was inserted in the International Lists,a number of items had been
deleted. It would therefore be advisable to include in Item 1529 all
measuring, testing or calibrating instruments operating at frequencies
of over 500 Mc/s.
11. The NETHERLt,NDS Delegate expressed the view that it was not highly
important to draw up a list of the instruments which might be exported.
12. The GERMAN Delegate then suggested by way of compromise that the
Committee should retain the definition they had adopted and that the
following year thgrshould establish a list of instruments under embargo
in the event of difficulties having been caused by the present text.
The Delegate then referred to another problem, that of spectrum analysers,
which were excluded under the terms of the current definition of Item
1529 as they were covered by Item 1533. The Delegate wondered whether
this exclusion clause should appear again in the now definition of Item
1529, or whether it would be preferable to delete Item 1533.
13. The UNITED STATES Delegate stated that his Delegation would prefer
to retain the exclusion clause in Item 1529 and. to keep Item 1533.
14. The GERMAN and UNITED KINGDOM Delegates stated that they had never
understood why radio spectrum analysers were given privileged treatment.
15. The FRENCH Delegate stated that his Delegation could accept the
present formula provided a distinction were made between analysers having
a strictly civilian use, which should be freed, and typos of analysers
which military authorities considered dangerous, which should be safeguarded.
16. The UNITED STATES Delegate stated that atsialysers were chiefly used
in the Bloc, as in the Unite-1 States, in conjunction with military radar
and electronic countermo,asuria equipment. The, United States Delegation
wore nevertheless prepared to consider a frequency cut-off at 500 Me/s
for these instruments provided that equipment thus freed were limited to
instruments having; interchangeable heads.
17. The FLENCN Delegate proposed the exclusion from embargo of radio
spectrum analysers of the quadratic indicator type.
18. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that the strategic use of
instruments of this type applied to the range between 500 and 600 Mc/s.
It was for this reason that his Delegation had been unable to accept the
German proposal and considered that the cut-off of 500 Mc/s should not
be exceeded.
19. The COMMITTEE agreed to entrust to a Working Group the task of
finding a satisfactory solution by means of the exclusion clause
regarding radio spectrum analysers,
20. On the 8th December, the COMMITTEE, on the advice of the Working
Group, agreed that the exclusion clause regarding radion spectrum analysers
would be retained as in the curreMe List definition, and that the definition
of Item 1533 would be altxned with,.new definition of 1529.
CONCLUSION: The COMMITTEE agreed to adopt the following_new definition
for Item 1529:
"Electronic measuring, esting or calibrating instruments,
having one or more..the following characteristics:
S E C R E T
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100060048-4
 Approved For, Release : CIA-RDP62-00647;00100060048-4
iftv
S EC R E T - 3 - C0C0M Document No 3715.2 2 B
(a) Those designed for use at frequencies
in excess of 500 Mcfs, except radio spectrum
analysers. (Soo Item 1533.)
(b) (i) Frequency measuring; equipment or frequency
standards designed for other than grcund
laboratory use wi~h an accuracy better
than J. part in 10 ;
(ii) Ground laboratory frequency standards or
frequency measuring equipment incorporating
frequency standards with a stability over
24 hours of 1 part in 109 or better;
(c) Testing instruments rated to maintain their specified
operating data when operating over a range of ambient
temperatures extending from below -25?C to above +55?C."
S E C R E T
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100060048-4