NVIDIA DGX H100 / H200 system: 10.2 kW max air-cooled 8-GPU node (6x 3.3 kW PSU, 4+2 redundant)

STRUCTURALLY NOT APPLICABLE, and this is the distinction that matters: the lead time for this record's subject is set by construction, electrical service and cooling/CDU plumbing, not by GPU allocation. The accelerator is not the scarce item, so an accelerator lead time is the wrong question - the record's own notes make this argument. Null here means 'wrong question', not 'no data'.

EAR 3A090.a / 3A090.b (advanced-computing ICs) + EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) (D:5/Macau end-user and ultimate-parent) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List screening) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified/MEU lists)

LAYER 1, EXPORT LICENCE: under the Jan 2026 BIS rule 91 FR 1684 (effective 2026-01-15) the license review policy for advanced-computing commodities with TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s - the NVIDIA H200 and AMD MI325X are the rule's named examples - moved from PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports FROM THE UNITED STATES to end users located in China or Macau, and only against six exporter certifications filed via SNAP-R before shipment: (1) items below the thresholds with the count of units shipped in the US; (2) sufficient US supply, judged 'taking into account normal lead times'; (3) no diversion of global foundry capacity away from US end users; (4) aggregate China+Macau shipments <= 50% of total US end-use shipments of that product; (5) no end-user or use prohibition; (6) the consignee runs rigorous KYC. Every shipment must then pass a qualified third-party testing lab - US-headquartered, not controlled by a D:5/Macau entity, no ownership stake in any party, qualification revocable by BIS at any time - verifying TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity. Reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau REMAIN PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL. LAYER 2, END-USER AND PARENT SCREENING: per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 (15 CFR part 740 supplement no. 1) or Macau OR whose ULTIMATE PARENT COMPANY is so headquartered - even when the consignee itself sits outside D:5/Macau. The requirement sits at EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) for destinations outside the US, with an exception available only under the license exception at 740.2(a)(9)(ii). The destination country alone therefore never answers the question; screen the parent. LAYER 3, REMAINING LIMITS: exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered OR -parented entities stay PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL wherever the buyer sits, and the AI Diffusion Rule that would have set a country-tier structure on who could lawfully buy what was RESCINDED on 2025-05-13 and is not being enforced, so any recorded status rests on the instruments named here rather than on tiering.

THE CONTROL CASE, AND THE REASON H100-CLASS INFERENCE IS STILL DEPLOYABLE WHERE GB200-CLASS IS NOT. Every figure from the vendor's own DGX H100/H200 User Guide. POWER: 6 x 3.3 kW power supplies, 3300 W at 200-240 V / 16 A each, configured 4+2 redundant, with the table headed '10.2 kW max.' for the system. Installed PSU capacity is 6 x 3.3 = 19.8 kW against a 10.2 kW max system draw. THERMAL AND AIRFLOW, WHICH IS WHY IT IS AIR-COOLABLE AT ALL: heat output 38,557 BTU/hr, airflow 1105 CFM front-to-back at 80% fan PWM, operating temperature 5-30 C, relative humidity 20-80% non-condensing. That 1105 CFM figure is the real procurement gate - it is a loud, airflow-hungry 8U box (287.6 lbs / 130.45 kg, 35.3 in deep), and the room must move that much air past it. Compare to GB200 NVL72's liquid-loop rack with fans only on the non-compute components. PSU FAILURE BEHAVIOUR, VERBATIM AND OPERATIONALLY IMPORTANT: 'If three PSUs lose power as a result of a data center issue or power distribution unit failure, the system continues to function, but at a reduced performance level.' Also: the system only boots if at least three PSUs are operational; below three only the BMC is available; 'Do not operate the system with PSUs depopulated.' So a single PDU or PSU-distribution failure degrades the node rather than crashing it - good for uptime, but the degraded state is silent and will show up as reduced throughput rather than as an alert in most monitoring setups. That is recorded separately as gotchas/dgx-psu-depop-silent-degraded-throughput. WHY THIS MATTERS FOR THE AI-INFERENCE BUYER: 10.2 kW per node sits just above Vantage's published colo standard of 8.3 kW/rack average (projecting 11 kW+ in the near future) and comfortably below their 20 kW air-cooled ceiling. A standard colo data module can host a DGX-class node today with no facility work. A GB200 NVL72 rack cannot be placed in the same room without liquid infrastructure, different power shelves and a different busbar. This is the cleanest boundary in the whole power-density picture: below ~20 kW/rack air cooling is a solved procurement problem; above it you are buying a facility, not a server. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; sources spl-eccn-3a090-ccl, spl-bis-2026-01-advanced-computing-case-by-case, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance): these parts classify under ECCN 3A090.a/.b, whose thresholds are 'total processing performance' (TPP) >= 4800, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density >= 5.92 (the .b band is TPP 2400-4800 with performance density 1.6-5.92, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density 3.2-5.92). The mechanism has THREE layers and all three must be cleared, not just one: (a) LICENSE FOR EXPORT FROM THE US - controlled by the January 2026 rule (91 FR 1684, effective 2026-01-15), which moved TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s parts from presumption of denial to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports from the US to end users in China/Macau, and only against six exporter certifications - US supply sufficiency judged 'taking into account normal lead times', no diversion of foundry capacity away from US end users, aggregate China+Macau shipments capped at 50% of US end-use shipments, no end-user prohibition, consignee KYC procedures, and prior verification by a qualified third-party US testing lab of TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity; (b) END-USER AND PARENT-COMPANY SCREENING under 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) - per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 or Macau OR ITS ULTIMATE PARENT is so headquartered, EVEN IF the consignee itself is outside D:5/Macau, which means the destination country alone never answers the question; (c) THE LIMITS THAT REMAIN - reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau remain PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL, and exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered or -parented entities remain presumption of denial wherever the buyer sits. The Jan-2025 AI Diffusion Rule was rescinded and not enforced from 2025-05-13, but that rescission did not remove (a) or (b). THE OUTCOME THAT DECIDES A PROCUREMENT (source spl-nvda-10q-fy2027q2-h200-licence-outcome): a licence is necessary but demonstrably NOT sufficient. NVIDIA has been granted H200 licences under exactly this regime and reported that those sales were 'restricted by the PRC government', that it made 'a fraction of the allowed shipments', and that both those shipments and all Data Center Hopper shipments to China in the quarter were LESS THAN 1% of Data Center revenue - alongside a $0.4 billion H200 excess-inventory and purchase-obligation charge. The licences additionally require US inspection before shipment, which attracts a 25% tariff on importation into the US that NVIDIA states it cannot pass on. So a destination-market import approval, not the US licence, was the binding constraint. LEAD TIME: null - and for this record that is the WRONG QUESTION, which is the point worth recording. This record measures a build constraint that is not the accelerator supply chain: the lead time for a 120 kW liquid-cooled rack is set by construction, electrical service, and CDU/manifold plumbing, not by GPU allocation. Its own notes already make this argument for the colo case, so this entry only fixes the boundary: do not read a GPU lead time into a facility lead time, and do not read a facility lead time into a GPU lead time. No vendor publishes a weeks figure for either, so both stay null - probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time. Where a real published horizon exists for the supply side it is on the accelerator record (NVIDIA's $95.2bn purchase and supply/capacity obligations substantially payable through FY2027, source spl-nvda-10k-fy2026-supply-commitments).