BIS Issues First FAQs for Chinese Supercomputering and Semiconductor Manufacturing Export Controls


On Friday, October 28, 2022, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued its first Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the Interim Final Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 61286, entitled “Implementation of Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items; Supercomputer and Semiconductor End Use; Entity List Modification.” These FAQs cover the following topics: the applicability of the new restrictions on exports and reexports to Hong Kong and Macau; the definition of fabrication “facility;” deemed export/reexports;  U.S. person definition and restrictions;  licenses; and encryption.

Background

On Thursday, October 13, 2022, the BIS published in the Federal Register an Interim Final Rule, 87 Fed Reg. 62186, amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774) to impose new export controls on Chinese advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities containing such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items. For more information on these controls, see our blog post here.

These controls, all of which are currently effective, include:

FAQs

Hong Kong and Macau

On December 23, 2020, BIS published in the Federal Register a Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 83765, removing Hong Kong as a separate destination from China under the EAR.  Accordingly, these new license requirements on exports and reexport to China also apply to Hong Kong. However, BIS treats Macau as a distinct destination from China and, therefore, it is not subject to license requirements specific to China. BIS recommends, however, that exporters and reexporters conduct due diligence and be aware of red flags when shipping to Macau.

Semiconductor Fabrication Facility

EAR § 772.1 defines “facility” as “a building or outdoor area in which people use an item that is built, installed, produced, or developed for a particular purpose.” Accordingly, a semiconductor fabrication “facility” is “a building where the production at the restricted technology level occurs.” The new export controls do not cover “subsequent steps at facilities, such as assembly, test, and/or packaging that do not alter the technology levels.”

Each building on the same company campus with the same address and/or part of the same legal entity is considered to be a separate facility. However, parties should exercise sufficient due diligence to ensure their item or activity is only for an unrestricted fabrication.

If the same building houses both a restricted and unrestricted line, the building is subject to the new controls.

Deemed Exports/ Reexports

The regional stability (RS) controls placed on the new and revised ECCNs in EAR § 742.6(a)(6)(ii) do not apply to deemed exports/reexports. However, all of these ECCNs (as well as their associated technology/software) are controlled for anti-terrorism (AT) reasons, which are not exempt from deemed export/reexport requirements. Accordingly, a license is required to export, reexport, or transfer (in country) to or within AT-countries, which include Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

A foreign person who lawfully received technology or software source code prior to the effective date of the new ECCNs does not need a new license or authorization. However, if a foreign person is receiving different technology or software source code – even if classified under the same ECCN – then a new or additional authorization is required.

Restrictions on U.S. Person

U.S. person is defined in EAR § 722.1.  For purposes of § 744.6(c) of the EAR described below, the term U.S. person includes:

BIS also notes the definition of “person” in EAR § 772.21, which includes “A natural person, including a citizen or national of the United States or of any foreign country; any firm; any government, government

agency, government department, or government commission; any labor union; any fraternal or

social organization; and any other association or organization whether or not organized for profit.  This definition does not apply to part 760 of the EAR (Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts).”

For items not subject to the EAR used in the “development” or “production” of integrated circuits at fabrication facilities in China that fabricate integrated circuits meeting the criteria specified in § 744.6(c)(2)(i)(A)-(C) of the EAR, the U.S. persons control in § 744.6(c)(2) apply to persons who:

  1. Authorize the shipment, transmittal, or in-country transfer (in-country) of such items;

  2. Conduct the delivery, by shipment, transmittal, or transfer in-country of such items; or

  3. Service, including maintaining, repairing, overhauling, or refurbishing such items.

For any item not subject to the EAR that meets the parameters of any ECCN in Product Groups B, C, D, or E in Category 3 of the Commerce Control List, these license requirements apply even when the U.S. person does not know whether the activity is for a facility that fabricates integrated circuits that meet the criteria in § 744.6(c)(2)(i)(A)-(C).

These restrictions do not extend to U.S. persons conducting administrative or clerical activities (e.g., arranging for shipment or preparing financial documents) or otherwise implementing a decision to approve a restricted shipment, transmittal, or in-country transfer, or development or production activities that are not directly related to the provision of specific items to or servicing of specific items for advanced Chinese fabs (i.e., those developing or producing integrated circuits meeting the criteria in § 744.6(c)(2)(i)(A)-(C)), absent evidence of knowledge of a violation by those persons.

U.S. persons should conduct appropriate due diligence to assess whether a fabrication “facility” in China fabricates integrated circuits meeting any of the criteria set forth in § 744.6(c)(2)(i)(A)-(C). Appropriate due diligence should include a review of public information, the capability of items to be provided or serviced, proprietary market data, and end-use statements. U.S. persons should follow the “Know Your Customer” guidance in Supplement No.3 to part 732 of the EAR and the additional guidance found on BIS’s website, available here.  U.S. persons can also submit Advisory Opinion requests to BIS pursuant to § 750.2 of the EAR for guidance on specific fabrication facilities.

U.S. persons should use the reexport designation on the SNAP-R form for submitting license applications for these activities. Applicants should specify that the license is required for the transaction under § 744.6 of the EAR in the “Additional Information” and should input “U.S. Person Activity” in the Special Purpose Field.

Licensing and Review Policy

Licenses previously issued for items now captured under the parameters of the new ECCNS remain valid until their expiration dates absent license-specific action by BIS to suspend, revoke, or impose additional conditions on the previously issued license.

BIS has issued authorizations in limited circumstances to allow continued operations. A company who received the authorization should provide it to parties to the transactions so that they may jointly determine if the transaction meets the terms and conditions of the authorization.

Encryption

ECCN 5A992 and 5D992 items that meet or exceed the parameters of 3A090 or 4A090 are subject to the license requirement and review policy for 3A090 and 4A090 items (see EAR §742.6(a)(9)), in addition to being subject to restrictions or requirements in Category 5 Part 2 (i.e., classification, licensing, and reporting requirements). Furthermore, computers, integrated circuits, “electronic assemblies” or “components” not specified in § 740.2(a)(9)(i) (i.e., ECCNs 3A090, 3B090, 4A090, or associated software and technology in 3D001, 3E001, 4D090, and 4E001) that meet or exceed the parameters of 3A090 or 4A090 are subject to license exception restrictions in § 740.2(a)(9)(ii) of the EAR, i.e., may not be exported, reexported, transferred (in-country) using License Exception ENC.


© Copyright 2025 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 333