What the H200 export rule requires before China licences get case-by-case review

BIS's final rule in Federal Register document 2026-00789 (15 CFR Parts 742, 744 and 748) revises the license review policy for exports of certain semiconductors to China and Macau from a presumption of denial to a case-by-case review; its effective date is January 15, 2026.

[FR Doc No: 2026-00789] ... 15 CFR Parts 742, 744, and 748 ... The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is revising its license review policy for exports of certain semiconductors to China and Macau--changing it from a presumption of denial to a case-by-case review. ... Effective date: The effective date of this rule is January 15, 2026.

The rule says the semiconductors covered are the Nvidia H200 and its equivalents, as well as less advanced chips, provided they are commercially available in the United States at the time of publication of the rule and the exporter makes the required certifications.

The semiconductors covered by this rule are the Nvidia H200 and its equivalents, as well as less advanced chips--provided that (1) the semiconductors are commercially available in the United States at the time of publication of this rule and (2) the exporter certifies that:

The rule says BIS and reviewing agencies will determine, on a case-by-case basis and based on the records and information provided in the application, whether to approve or deny the license.

Based on the records and information provided as part of the application process, BIS and reviewing agencies will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to approve or deny the license of these specific commodities.

The rule applies to advanced computing commodities with a TPP less than 21,000 and a total DRAM bandwidth less than 6,500 GB/s, such as the NVIDIA H200 or AMD MI325X.

for advanced computing commodities with a TPP less than 21,000 (as defined in Technical Note 2 to 3A090.a and 3A090.b), and a `total DRAM bandwidth' less than 6,500 GB/s (as defined in the notes to paragraph (dd)(1) in supplement no. 2 to part 748), such as the NVIDIA H200 or AMD MI325X

The rule requires the applicant to certify that there is sufficient supply of the product in the United States such that the export would not delay fulfilling any existing or new orders of advanced-node integrated circuits from US customers for end use in the United States.

there is sufficient supply of the product in the United States such that export of the product authorized by this license would not result in any delay in fulfilling any existing or new orders of any of its ``advanced-node integrated circuits'' from customers in the United States for end use in the United States (taking into account normal lead times)

The rule requires the applicant to certify that aggregate shipments of the product to China and Macau will be no more than 50% of the total product shipped to customers for end use in the United States of that product.

the aggregate shipments of the product to China and Macau will be no more than 50% of the total product shipped to customers for end use in the United States of that product

The rule requires the applicant to certify that the ultimate consignee will employ rigorous Know Your Customer procedures to screen and prevent unauthorized remote access to unauthorized parties.

the ultimate consignee will employ rigorous Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures to screen and prevent unauthorized remote access to unauthorized parties (e.g., prohibited part 744 parties)

The rule requires that, prior to export from the United States, a qualified third-party testing lab review the shipment to confirm the technical capabilities and functions of the commodities, and says the review can be of a representative sampling of a batch chosen by the lab rather than every individual semiconductor.

prior to export from the United States, every shipment of advance computing commodities will be reviewed by a qualified third- party testing lab to confirm the technical capabilities and functions of the AI commodities ... Such a review can be performed by a representative sampling of a batch of semiconductors chosen by the lab, rather than the lab reviewing every individual semiconductor that the exporter intends to export.

The rule says the third-party testing lab must be headquartered in the United States, the testing must take place in the United States, and the lab must not have any financial interest or ownership in any party to the transaction.

Among the qualifications for a third-party testing lab, it must be headquartered in the United States, not otherwise under the control of a company or other entity headquartered in or whose ultimate parent company or other entity is headquartered in Country Group D:5 or Macau, and the testing must take place in the United States. Further, the lab must not have any financial interest or ownership in any party to the transaction

The rule requires the applicant to certify that global foundry capacity that would otherwise be used to produce similar node or more advanced integrated circuits for end users in the United States will not be diverted to produce the commodities authorized by the license for export to China.

that global foundry capacity that would otherwise be used to produce similar node or more advanced integrated circuits for end users in the United States will not be diverted to produce the commodities authorized by this license for exports to China

The rule maintains a presumption of denial licensing policy for exports to entities that are headquartered, or have a parent company headquartered, in Macau or a Country Group D:5 destination, including end users located outside those destinations, and for reexports and transfers (in-country) of these commodities to Macau or Country Group D:5 destinations.

For reexports (including exports from abroad) and transfers (in-country) of AI commodities subject to the EAR with a TPP less than 21,000, and a `total DRAM bandwidth' less than 6,500 GB/s, when destined to either Macau or a destination specified in Country Group D:5, the licensing policy remains a presumption of denial. For exports to entities that are headquartered or have a parent company headquartered in Macau or a destination in Country Group D:5, including end-users located outside of destinations in Country Group D:5 or Macau, the licensing policy is a presumption of denial.

The rule's paperwork section puts the increase at 100 more license applications per year, because industry is more likely to submit licenses when there is a case-by-case review versus a presumption of denial license review policy.

will affect the collection under control number 0694-0088, for the multipurpose application because of the increase of 100 more license applications per year, because industry is more likely to submit licenses when there is a case-by-case review versus a presumption of denial license review policy.

The rule specifies conditions that, if satisfied, allow license applicants to move from a presumption of denial to a case-by-case license review policy for exports from the United States to China or Macau.

this final rule specifies certain conditions that, if satisfied, allow for license applicants to move from a presumption of denial to a case-by-case license review policy for exports from the United States destined to China or Macau.

BIS's Know Your Customer guidance (Supplement No. 3 to Part 732) says red flags are abnormal circumstances in a transaction that indicate that the export may be destined for an inappropriate end-use, end-user, or destination.

(1) Decide whether there are “red flags”. Take into account any abnormal circumstances in a transaction that indicate that the export may be destined for an inappropriate end-use, end-user, or destination. Such circumstances are referred to as “red flags”.

The guidance says that when red flags are raised in information that comes to a firm, it has a duty to check out the suspicious circumstances and inquire about the end-use, end-user or ultimate country of destination; and that absent red flags (or an express requirement in the EAR) there is no affirmative duty to inquire, verify or go behind the customer's representations.

absent “red flags” (or an express requirement in the EAR), there is no affirmative duty upon exporters to inquire, verify, or otherwise “go behind” the customer's representations. However, when “red flags” are raised in information that comes to your firm, you have a duty to check out the suspicious circumstances and inquire about the end-use, end-user, or ultimate country of destination.

The guidance says not to self-blind: do not cut off the flow of information that comes to the firm in the normal course of business.

(3) Do not self-blind. Do not cut off the flow of information that comes to your firm in the normal course of business.

The eCFR text of 15 CFR 742.6(b)(10)(iii)(A)(1), as read on 9 November 2026, provides a case-by-case license review policy for exports of commodities with a TPP less than 21,000 and a total DRAM bandwidth less than 6,500 GB/s destined to end users located in China or Macau, provided the applicant provides the additional information in supplement no. 2 to part 748 paragraph (dd).

There is a case-by-case license review policy for license applications for exports of commodities with a TPP (as defined in Technical Note 2 to 3A090.a and 3A090.b) less than 21,000, and a 'total DRAM bandwidth' (as defined in the notes to paragraph (dd)(1) in supplement no. 2 to part 748) less than 6,500 GB/s, when destined to end-users located in China or Macau, provided the applicant provides the additional information described in supplement no. 2 to part 748 under paragraph (dd).

The rule's new paragraph (dd)(1)(v) of supplement no. 2 to part 748 requires the applicant to obtain from the ultimate consignee a description of its Know Your Customer procedures to prevent remote access by the end uses or end users the rule excludes, and to submit that information to BIS.