MEMORANDUM BY THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION CONCERNING THE FRENCH INTERPRETATION OF THE EMBARGO COVERAGE OF ITEM 1520

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170045-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 18, 1998
• Sequence Number: 45
• Publication Date: September 9, 1959
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170045-5
S
'V wax loop,
9th September, 1959. COCOM Document No. 3659
MEMOiLODUM BY THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION
CONCERNING THE FRENCH INTERPRETATION CF THE
El ARGO COVERAGE OF ITEM 1520
rceferenee: COGGM Document 3634-
1. The United States authorities have given the French statement to
COCOM an exhaustive examination. They have concluded that the French export
to ;Oland of the radio relay system described in COCOM Document 3634 unques-
tionably requires COCOM approval because the equipment in question is embar-
goed by Item 1520. Moreover, the United States authorities will be unable to
concur in such an exception request.
2. The United States regards this question as one of utmost importance
in view of the great strategic value inherent in radio relay equipment. It
is difficult for the United States to see how a meaningful embargo on this
critical equipment can be preserved if the radio relay system described in the
French memorandum, or equipment siuilar to it, can be exported to the Bloc
whenever the exporting country reports that it will be used to relay television
prograr. s.
3. The French statement to COCOA on July 28 argues that the equipment
to link Lodz, 'Warsaw, Poznan and Katvwice is not embargoed because it falls
within the meaning of the exclusion clause of Item 1520.
This clause defines non-embargoed radio relay communications equip-
ment as "short range and low power links for trans;issions between the camera
or studio and the television transmitter".
5. In support of the contention that the Type FHT 4076 meets this
requirement, the French Delegation states that: 1) the transmitters are of
low power output (3 watts); 2) the range is very limited; 3) there are no stand-
jy facilities, so that it cannot be used for telephone service; 4) the Type
FHT 4076 in the 3800--42GO Me/s band is strictly reserved for television.
6. These contentions are not supported either by material published
by the manufacturer of the equipment himself or by our technical experts who
have studied the French statement.
7. The manufacturer in his published technical statement on the Type
PHT 4076 (Notice No. 386.6.1959) makes points that conflict with each of the
four arguments presented above. The pertinent passages from that technical
statement of the manufacturer are as follows:
"The radio relay system Type FHT 4076 is designed for very long
distance transmission of a wide band signal, and principally, of
60G telephone channels or of a 625 line television signal (with
or without the accompanying sound)".
Pace 2.
"The transmission is frequency modulation in the 3800 to 4200
Mc/s band. The power output is more than 6 watts."
Page 2.
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170045-5
 ? Approved Frr Release : CIA-RDP62-00647AW0100170045-5
CONFIDENTIAL
COMM Document No. 3655
"This unit She modulation-de-modulation unit Type HD 79
transmits indifferently either telephone channels or television".
Page 3.
8. The analysis made by our technicians in Washington agre manufacturers statements and examines the problem as it relates toethei ermse
of the exclusion clause of Item 1520.
90 The cc;ntrolling phrase in the exclusion clause of Item 1520 is that
referring to the use for which the equipment is designed. The phrases defining
power output and rane obviously refer only to equipment used to link the
camera or studio to the television transmitter. If the equipment is not de-
signed for this use, i.e., linking camera or studio to the transmitter, it does
not qualify for exclusion no matter wnat its power or range may be.
10. It is evident that the Type FHT 4076 is not designed to link the
camera or studio to the transmitter. The manufacturer dues not suggest it for
this purpose and C000M Document 3634 makes clear that a city to city link
spanning over 500 kilometers is intended. Moreover, the frequency range alone
demonstrates that the equipment is for telephone, telegraph or television pro-
gram transmission from city to city. The range of 3000 to 420C Mc/s is reserves;
in France, as elsewhere, exclusively for this type of transmission. Television
links from camera or studio to the transmitter are confined in France to a band
of frequencies near to 856C Mc/s. The TRT Model TV 3, which is the TRT equip-
ment specially designed, to link camera or studio to the TV transmitter, ope-
rates at 8200 to 8500 Mc/s.
11. These facts convinced our experts that the FHT 4076 does not satis-
fy the basic requirement of the exclusion clause.
12. Since this fundamental condition is not met, the other considera-
tions outlined in the French statement are no longer logically relevant.
However, the remainder of the exports' analysis is also of interest.
13. They do not believe that the Type FHT 4076 is particularly low in
power output. Even assuming a power output of 3 watts (compared to the manu-
facturer's statement of over 6 watts), this is still significant for radio
relay equipment. For example, the Ratheon Model ETR-1000, designed for tele-
vision relays, has a power output of only 1 watt. The TRT Typo FHT ;1300, a
long-haul TV link, has a power output of only 1.5 watts with a possible single
hop range of 100 kilometers. Even the TRT Type CZ 8 V, said by the manufactu-
rer to have established the "world's longest microwave leap" has a power output
of only 10 watts. The Ratheon Model TOR-12, designed for telephone service, has
a ;bower output of 0.1 watt. Finally, the TRT Type TV 3, which is its studio
or .camera link to transmitter, has a power output of only 0.4 watt.
14. Nor do the experts believe that this equipment can be meaningfully
described as "short range", even leaving aside for the moment the fact that the;
,i,anufacturer specifically describes it as "very long range". All radio relay
equipment is, by its very nature (i.e. line of sight transmission) composed of
short range links. If the equipment is designed so that multiple short range
links can be joined to span great distances, it is obviously long range equip-
ment and is so known to the profession. If the equipment is not suitable to
cover great distances in multiple links, it is clearly short range. Camera or
studio to transmitter links are a special type of equipment (e.g. TRT's TV 3)
not designed to the high standards necessary for multiple links to cover ex-
tended distances. The Type FIT 4076, however, is designed for multiple links
over great distances.
15. The contention that the FFIT 4076 can carry only one television
channel, and cannot carry telephone channels because no stand-by equipment is
being ordered, is not convincing to the experts either. They point out that,
if this equipment is not embargoed, as contended in the French statement to the
Approved For ke'ie s 16A. F D i2 ' 47A000100170045-5
 Approved F Release : CIA-RDP62-00647AQ0100170045-5
CONFIDENTIAL - 3
C0CQM Document No. 3659
Committee, any number of additional relay units could be purchased permitting
simultaneous two way cor:,munication. Cr, units installed on one sector could be
transferred to another sector to obtain the same effect. Since the Type
FHT 4076 is designed for both 600 channel telephone communication or 625 line
TV, either of these services would then be available.
16. All of these considerations convince the United States authorities
that the Type FHT 4076 proposed for export is unquestionably embargoed. It is
not designed as a camera or studio link to the TV transmitter but for transmis-
sion between cities. It therefore fails to meet the basic requirement of the
exclusion clause in Item 1520. Moreover, it is not especially low in power
output nor is it short range equipment. It cannot be said to be exclusively
for television and, to the contrary, is suited to high volume long distance
telephony. It therefore has many strategic applications.
17. It is also appropriate briefly to recall the interpretation given
by the French Delegation to the present exclusion clause in Item 1520 during
the 1956 list review.
18. It was the French Delegation which submitted the text reading "...
a l'exclusion du materiel de radio transmission a faible puissance assurant la
transmission entre la camera de prise de vue ou le studio et 1'emettewz de
television". (Document 3015.00/2). It was the United States understanding that
this wording of the exception clause in Item 1 520 was clearly intended to
prevent the shipment of equipment suitable for long distance transmission.
19. Later, during the Committee discussion of June 24, 1558, the French
Delegation cited the TV station at Grenoble as an example of the meaning of the
exclusion clause. The French text, it was stated, was designed to permit the
linking of the studio and the transmitter which are 6 kilometers distant.
The French Delegation also explained that the distance between studio and
transmitter might be even as much as 20 kilometers.
20. The United States Delegation hopes and believes that this full
exposition of the c- irefully considered views of United States experts and
authorities will be convincing to all delegations and their experts and
authorities as well.
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170045-5