| Date | 31 May 2026 |
|---|
The May 2025 decision not to enforce the AI Diffusion Rule’s new compliance requirements did not, on BIS’s account, lift the preexisting license requirement for advanced computing items destined to entities headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau, or to entities whose ultimate parent is headquartered there.
IN BRIEF: On May 31, 2026, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security stated that a license remains required under § 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) of the Export Administration Regulations to export advanced computing items to all destinations outside the United States when the items are for an entity headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau, or whose ultimate parent company is headquartered there, the AI Diffusion Rule non-enforcement policy notwithstanding.
RECORD:
Date: May 31, 2026
Beat: Chip-War Control Ledger; Chips & Semiconductors
Jurisdiction: United States; Country Group D:5 and Macau, as designated in the guidance
Entity: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Instrument / cite: Guidance Regarding Enforcement of License Requirements for Advanced Computing Items for Entities Headquartered in Country Group D:5 and Macau [May 31, 2026]; EAR § 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A); EAR § 744.23(a)(3); EAR § 740.2(a)(9)(ii)
Source type: BIS guidance
Confidence: confirmed
Record ID: N/A
Source: BIS
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, on May 31, 2026, issued guidance to close a reading of its own May 2025 non-enforcement announcement. A license is still required to export advanced computing items to entities headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau, or with an ultimate parent company headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau, even if the entities themselves are located outside those places. BIS said it had been asked whether the preexisting license requirement established in November 2023 is still being enforced for “.a” advanced computing items to Country Group D:5 and Macau-headquartered entities located outside destinations that were subject to a license requirement prior to the AI Diffusion Rule. “The answer is yes.”
The requirement was first introduced on November 17, 2023. BIS implemented it via an end-user control in § 744.23(a)(3) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774). The guidance states that the control applied to advanced computing items specified in Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 3A090.a and .b, 4A090.a and .b, and related .z paragraph items. In January 2025, the AI Diffusion Rule transferred the requirement for these “.a” items from § 744.23(a) into § 742.6 as part of a new worldwide license requirement. In May 2025, BIS announced that it would not be enforcing the AI Diffusion Rule’s new compliance requirements. The transfer and the announcement are sequential in the guidance, and they are not treated as the same act. The “.a” requirement moved into § 742.6; the later announcement declined to enforce the AI Diffusion Rule’s new compliance requirements. That is the gap the May 31 document fills.
The continuing cite is § 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) of the EAR. Under it, BIS states, a license requirement continues to apply to all destinations outside the United States for these advanced computing items when the items are for entities headquartered in, or whose ultimate parent company is headquartered in, Country Group D:5 or Macau. Country Group D:5 is identified only by cross-reference to supplement no. 1 to part 740 of the EAR. The guidance does not list the group’s members. Macau is named on its own. The limit on non-enforcement is one sentence: “Because this license requirement predates the AI Diffusion Rule, BIS’s non-enforcement policy with respect to the destination-based license requirements for these advanced computing items under § 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) applies only to the extent such items are not for entities headquartered in or that have ultimate parent companies headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau.” On that formulation, the consignee’s location does not dispose of the license question once the entity, or its ultimate parent, is headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau.
BIS tells exporters to keep filing. “Exporters should continue to seek BIS licenses for such transactions, unless a license exception specified in § 740.2(a)(9)(ii) is available.” The guidance does not describe what that exception covers. It points applicants to part 748 of the EAR for license-application guidance, and it points readers to Section 764.5 of the EAR for information on voluntary self-disclosures. No party is named. No shipment is described. No penalty is announced. The disclosure cite sits next to a statement that the requirement remained in force, which is the document’s only signal on transactions that may have been read against the May 2025 announcement.
A separate paragraph limits what the guidance requires of data-center operators. “Bona fide operators of data centers who are otherwise engaged in activities consistent with the EAR are not required to cease the ongoing use, storage, disposal, or servicing of advanced computing items because of this guidance, until further notice from BIS.” The relief is conditional and expressly temporary. It covers ongoing use, storage, disposal, and servicing by bona fide operators otherwise consistent with the EAR. It does not say that a new export to a Country Group D:5 or Macau-headquartered entity, or to an entity with such an ultimate parent, may proceed without a license. It does not extend the sentence to parties who are not operators of those facilities.
For a hardware founder, a cloud buyer, or an investor underwriting either, the document restores a fact pattern the non-enforcement announcement had made easy to miss. The license trigger BIS describes is not the street address of the consignee. It is headquarters — of the entity, or of its ultimate parent — set against Country Group D:5 or Macau, for items the guidance illustrates with ECCNs 3A090.a and .b, 4A090.a and .b, and related .z paragraph items, with the enforcement question answered for the “.a” items under § 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A). A third-country entity can still pull a transaction inside that requirement. Enterprise procurement teams and limited partners will treat an unlicensed shipment on that pattern as a controls miss, not as reliance on a paused rule. The text is guidance on enforcement, not a Federal Register amendment, and it leaves the availability of § 740.2(a)(9)(ii) to the EAR itself.
WHY IT MATTERS: Screening a consignee’s location against the May 2025 non-enforcement announcement does not answer the license question this guidance poses. The facts BIS treats as decisive are the item — illustrated by ECCNs 3A090.a and .b, 4A090.a and .b, and related .z paragraph items, with the answered question framed around the “.a” items — and the headquarters of the entity or its ultimate parent. Data-center operators receive a narrow, temporary carve-out for ongoing use, storage, disposal, and servicing; exporters are told to keep seeking licenses unless § 740.2(a)(9)(ii) is available.