;

16-0930 Friday “The Daily Bugle”

16-0930 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 30 September 2016

TOPThe Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events. Subscribe here for free subscription. Contact us for advertising inquiries and rates.

  1. DoD/GSA/NASA Amend FAR, Adding Ukraine and Moldova as Designated Countries Under WTO GPA 
  2. DHS/CBP Amends Regulations and Seeks Comments on Notice of Arrival for Importations of Pesticides and Pesticidal Devices
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/Census: “ACE AESDirect Scheduled Outage, 1-2 Oct” 
  3. Commerce/Census: “Removal of AES License Type Codes C49, C55 & C56” 
  4. Commerce/BIS: Technoline SAL of Sin El Fil, Beirut, Lebanon to Pay $450,000 to Settle Alleged Export Violations 
  5. DoD/DSS Announces Establishment of the National Background Investigations Bureau 
  6. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  7. EU Amends Several Restrictive Measures 
  8. EU Renews Libyan Sanctions for Six Months 
  9. UK/BIS ECO: “EU Aims to Update Dual-Use Export Controls” 
  1. NSSF Praises Bipartisan Introduction of Export Control Reform Act in House; Companion Bill in Senate
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: GSP, Post-Entry Claims, AD/CV Enforcement, China”
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “Importers Preparing for Tougher CBP Enforcement of AD/CV Duty Evasion”
  1. L.S. Zengerie, E. Laskey LaRocca & D. Delott: “Chinese Business and Tourist Travelers Must Enroll in Visa System Beginning Nov 29”
  2. R. Stohl: “New Draft on Drone Export Rules ‘More Problematic’ Than Original”
  3. R.C. Burns: “I’ll See You in C.U.B.A.”
  1. ECTI Presents United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar Series in Miami FL, 5-8 Dec 
  2. Friday List of Approaching Events 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (30 Sep 2016), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (7 Sep 2016), FACR/OFAC (18 May 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (29 Sep 2016)

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. DoD/GSA/NASA Amend FAR, Adding Ukraine and Moldova as Designated Countries Under WTO GPA

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
81 FR 67774-67776: Federal Acquisition Regulation; New Designated Countries–Ukraine and Moldova
* AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add Ukraine and Moldova as new designated countries under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA).
* DATES: Effective: October 31, 2016.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-219-0202 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-91, FAR Case 2016-009.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   Ukraine and Moldova recently became parties to the WTO GPA on May 18, 2016, and July 14, 2016, respectively. The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) provides the authority for the President to waive the Buy American statute and other discriminatory provisions for eligible products from countries that have signed an international trade agreement with the United States (such as the WTO GPA). The President has delegated this authority to the U.S. Trade Representative.
   The U.S. Trade Representative has determined that Ukraine and Moldova will provide appropriate reciprocal competitive Government procurement opportunities to United States products and services. The U.S. Trade Representative published notices in the Federal Register waiving the Buy American statute and other discriminatory provisions for eligible products from Ukraine at 81 FR 31292 on May 18, 2016, and Moldova at 81 FR 50045 on July 29, 2016.
   Therefore, this rule adds Ukraine and Moldova to the list of WTO GPA countries wherever it appears in the FAR, whether as a separate definition, part of the definition of “designated country” or “Recovery Act designated country,” or as part of the list of countries exempt from the prohibition of acquisition of products produced by forced or indentured child labor (FAR 22.1503, 25.003, 52.222-19, 52.225-5, 52.225-11, and 52.225-23).
   Conforming changes are made to FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statute or Executive Orders–Commercial Items, and 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions–Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Items). …
 
   Dated: September 19, 2016.
William F. Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. …

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a2

2. DHS/CBP Amends Regulations and Seeks Comments on Notice of Arrival for Importations of Pesticides and Pesticidal Devices
(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
81 FR 67140-67144: Notice of Arrival for Importations of Pesticides and Pesticidal Devices
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
* ACTION: Interim regulations; solicitation of comments.
* SUMMARY: This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations pertaining to the importation of pesticides and pesticidal devices into the United States subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Specifically, CBP is amending the regulations to permit the option of filing an electronic alternative to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices” (NOA) paper form, with entry documentation, via any CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. This change will support modernization initiatives, including implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS). This document also makes non-substantive conforming and editorial changes to the CBP regulations.
* DATES: This interim final rule is effective September 30, 2016. Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2016. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions related to the filing of EPA forms with CBP, contact William R. Scopa, Branch Chief, Partner Government Branch, Inter-Agency Collaboration Division, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at william.r.scopa@cbp.dhs.gov. For EPA-related questions, contact Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Specialist, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at yarger.ryne@epa.gov, telephone (703) 605-1193.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   CBP, in consultation with EPA, is amending the CBP regulations to permit the option of filing an electronic alternative to the NOA with the entry documentation, via any CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. The NOA may still be filed in a paper format with the EPA prior to arrival of the shipment, and the completed NOA must be filed with CBP at the time of entry.
   These changes liberalize filing procedures and implement modernization initiatives including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), as established by section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, by utilizing a single-window system for the collection and distribution of standard electronic import and export data required by participating Federal agencies. These amendments will allow electronic collection, processing, sharing, and review of requisite trade data and documents during the cargo import process. …
 
R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
   Approved: September 26, 2016.
Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a13. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* Treasury; Foreign Assets Control Office; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 3 October 2016.]

* U.S. Customs and Border Protection; NOTICES; Automated Commercial Environments: Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange System for Processing Electronic Drawback and Duty Deferral Entry and Entry Summary Filings [Publication Date: 3 October 2016.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
The outage is effective 10:00pm EST Saturday, October 1st – 4:00am EST Sunday, October 2nd.
 
ACE AESDirect filers may submit shipments under the AES Downtime Policy. State Department licensable shipments cannot be exported under the AES Downtime Policy and must be held until the connection is restored and an Internal Transaction Number (ITN) is received. Once connection is brought back on-line after the outage, all shipments that were exported under the AES Downtime Policy must be filed along with any new AES transactions.
 
If you use the AES Downtime Policy for export, please contact the port from which you will be exporting. In lieu of the AES Proof of Filing citation, please use the AES Downtime citation, which consists of the phrase AESDOWN, your individual company’s Filer ID, followed by the date.
 
For example: AESDOWN 123456789 10/01/2016
 
Please see the CBP web site for further information on the AES Downtime Policy.
 
For further information or questions, contact the U.S. Census Bureau’s Data Collection Branch.
 
  – Telephone: (800) 549-0595, select option 1 for AES
  – Email: askaes@census.gov
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
On May 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security published a final rule that amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to comply with the requirements of Division O, Title 1, Section 101 of Public Law 114-113 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016) concerning exports of crude oil from the United States. Consistent with this requirement, the final rule amended part 754 of the EAR by removing and reserving § 754.2, which described the short supply license requirements and licensing policies that applied to exports of crude oil from the United States to all destinations.
 
As a result of this rule, the following changes will be made immediately to the Automated Export System (AES) in order for exporters and authorized agents to successfully report electronic export information in the AES.
 
The Removal of License Types TAPS (C49), Short Supply Crude Oil Samples (C55) and Short Supply Strategic Petroleum Reserves (C56), from the Automated Export System.
 
United States Principal Parties in Interest (USPPIs) and their authorized filing agents (AES filers) must adhere to the following new reporting requirements to prevent the return of fatal errors from AES.
 
A complete list of all of the AES License Type codes and reporting instructions for these types can be found here.
 
For questions regarding these AES changes, please contact the Bureau of Industry and Security by email at ECR_AES@bis.doc.gov or at (202) 482-4933.
 
For general questions regarding AES, please contact the International Trade Management Division at the Bureau of the Census at 1-800-549-0595, option 1.
 
For classification questions about ECCNs, please contact the Bureau of Industry and Security at one of the numbers below:
 
  – Outreach and Educational Services Division (located in Washington, DC) (202) 482-4811
  – Western Regional Office (located in Irvine, CA) (949) 660-0144
  – Northern California branch (located in San Jose, CA) (408) 998-8806

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a46. Commerce/BIS: Technoline SAL of Sin El Fil, Beirut, Lebanon to Pay $450,000 to Settle Alleged Export Violations
(Source: Commerce/BIS) [Excerpts.]
 
* Respondent: Technoline SAL, Sin El Fil, Beirut, Lebanon
* Charges: 7 Charges of 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(b): Causing, Aiding, or Abetting a Violation of the Regulations:
  Technoline SAL (“Technoline”) caused, aided, and/or abetted violations of the Regulations on seven occasions between on or about August 20, 2009, and on or about October 21, 20I0, when it caused, aided, and/or abetted exports or reexports to Syria of items subject to the Regulations without the required BIS licenses. The items involved were U.S.-origin mass spectrometers, gas chromatographs and consumables, liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer systems, and liquid chromatograph modules subject to the Regulations, classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 3A999, controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, and valued in total at $583,109.56. …
* Penalty: Civil penalty of $450,000
* Debarred: Not if penalty is paid as agreed and Technoline has committed no other violation of the Act or the Regulations or any order, license or authorization issued there under, otherwise 2 years.
* Date of Order: 29 September 2016
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a57. DoD/DSS Announces
Establishment of the National Background Investigations Bureau

(Source: DoD/DSS)
 
On October 1, the new National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB), within the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), will be absorbing the existing mission, functions, and personnel of OPM’s Federal Investigative Services (FIS) and will begin to implement a number of changes designed to transform the background investigations process. Charles S. Phalen, Jr., former director of Security for the Central Intelligence Agency, will serve as the first director of the NBIB. Mr. Phalen’s biography can be found here.
 
The NBIB will feature a new organizational structure that institutionalizes strategic stakeholder engagement, an agile acquisition strategy, an enhanced focus on national security, dedicated mission support functions, and the use of innovative, data-driven methods to make improvements in processes. While NBIB will report to the OPM Director, unlike the previous structure, DOD will assume responsibility for the design, development, security, and operation of the background investigations IT systems for the new entity. This approach will leverage DOD’s significant national security, IT, and cybersecurity expertise. NBIB will be headquartered in Washington D.C., which will allow for enhanced coordination with its interagency partners, and NBIB will have a dedicated senior privacy official to advance privacy-by-design as the new entity is stood up and new IT systems are developed. A fact sheet on the NBIB can be found here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a68. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a79. EU Amends Several Restrictive Measures
 
Regulations:
  – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1735 of 29 September 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
  – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1736 of 29 September 2016 implementing Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) No 753/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan
  – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1737 of 29 September 2016 implementing Article 15(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1352/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Yemen
  – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1739 of 29 September 2016 amending for the 254th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
 
Decisions:
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1745 of 29 September 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi
  – Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/1746 of 29 September 2016 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria
  – Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/1747 of 29 September 2016 implementing Decision 2014/932/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Yemen
  – Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/1748 of 29 September 2016 implementing Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a810. EU Renews Libyan Sanctions for Six Months
 
On 30 September 2016, in view of the gravity of the situation, the Council prolonged the sanctions against Libya targeting three persons for six months.
 
On 1 April 2016, the Council added three persons to the list of people subject to EU restrictive measures against Libya.  Agila Saleh, president of the Libyan Council of Deputies in the House of Representatives; Khalifa Ghweil, prime minister and defence minister of the internationally unrecognised General National Congress; and Nuri Abu Sahmain, president of the internationally unrecognised General National Congress, are viewed as obstructing the implementation of the Libyan Political Agreement of 17 December 2015 and the formation of a Government of National Accord in Libya.
 
The Council remains concerned about the situation in Libya, and in particular about acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of the country, and that impede or undermine the successful completion of Libya’s political transition. 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a911. UK/BIS ECO: “EU Aims to Update Dual-Use Export Controls”
On 28 September the European Commission published their proposal to replace Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (5 May 2009) setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items.

This follows the Commission review of the European Union export control regime, reported most recently in notice to exporters 2015/21 of 17 July 2015 that advised stakeholders of a public consultation on these matters. (See link below if you wish to read this notice.)
 
Read the commission’s press release. This contains links to the proposal with associated annex, executive summary of their impact assessment and general background to the dual-use export control regime.
 
What will this mean for exporters?
 
To be aware. This proposal will now be discussed within the Council and the European Parliament. The UK’s exporters will be consulted as necessary when these discussions get underway.
 
Following the EU referendum, and until our exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The timescale of the negotiations on this particular Commission’s proposal has not been decided.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

NWS_a112
. NSSF Praises Bipartisan Introduction of Export Control Reform Act in House; Companion Bill in Senate

 
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries, praised the bipartisan introduction of the Export Control Reform Act of 2016 in the U.S. House of Representatives,  H.R. 6176, as well as the companion Senate bill, S. 3405, and called on Congress to pass this sensible pro-business and trade-enhancing legislation.
 
“The Export Control Reform Act of 2016 seeks to complete what the Obama administration itself began by transferring the export licensing and enforcement oversight of sporting and commercial firearms to the Commerce Department from the State Department,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We would especially like to thank the sponsors: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.); Congressmen Henry Cuellar (D-Texas); Tom Marino (R-Penn.); Gene Green (D-Texas); and Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) for their timely bipartisan leadership as well as Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) for sponsoring a companion bill in the Senate.”
 
In August 2009, with the support of the business community including NSSF, the Obama administration launched the Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative. The Initiative’s purpose is to both improve America’s global competitiveness by reducing unnecessary restrictions on exports of commercial items and enhance national security by focusing the State Department’s attention and resources on guarding truly sensitive defense items and technologies. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates once said, the ECR Initiative’s purpose is “to build a higher fence around a smaller yard.”
 
The administration has transferred, or is in the process of transferring, to Commerce from State, export licensing responsibility for virtually all commercial, non-military items. The only remaining items yet to be transferred are sporting and commercial firearms and related products. While we have patiently waited for the administration to make ECR progress on our products, small manufacturers, component parts suppliers, distributors, and exporters in our industry, and even gunsmiths and individuals, have to continue to comply with unnecessary regulations and to pay an annual minimum registration fee of $2,250, regardless of whether they actually export. Under the State Department’s Cold-war era export licensing regime, American companies are unable to compete globally on a level playing field.
 
“Because the administration has not moved forward in a timely manner to complete its own ECR Initiative, it is now time for Congress to move forward with legislation complete the ECR and reduce unneeded and burdensome regulations while improving our global competitiveness, create American jobs and enhance national security,” Keane said.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a2
13. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: GSP, Post-Entry Claims, AD/CV Enforcement, China”

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
  – Oct 3: deadline for comments on USDA proposal to allow
imports of fresh mango from Vietnam
  – Oct 3: deadline for comments to USDA on dairy TRQ import licensing information collections
  – Oct 3: deadline for comments to CBP on record of vessel foreign repair or equipment purchase
  – Oct 4: effective date of USDA final rule lowering import fee on cotton and cotton-containing products
  – Oct 4: deadline for petitions to
add or remove goods and countries to/from GSP
  – Oct 4: deadline for comments to USTR on expanding GSP eligibility for travel goods to additional countries
  – Oct 5: USTR hearing on China’s compliance with WTO commitments
  – Oct 7: deadline for comments on BIS rule imposing export controls on nuclear reactor parts

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a3
14. ST&R Trade Report: “Importers Preparing for Tougher CBP Enforcement of AD/CV Duty Evasion”

 
Empowered by authorities granted by Congress and spurred by a recent report critical of past efforts, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is moving quickly to implement a new process to combat the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties. The move is part of a broader CBP focus on improving trade enforcement efforts that has importers scrambling.
 
Preventing and addressing the evasion of AD/CV duties (e.g., the misrepresentation of country of origin or submission of false shipping and entry documentation) has always been a priority for CBP, but two recent developments have prompted the agency to redouble its efforts. One was the enactment earlier this year of the Enforce and Protect Act as part of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which gave CBP a significantly expanded role and the authorities to match. Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske has said CBP has had increasing success in identifying and disrupting distribution channels of imported goods that seek to evade AD/CV duties and expects to see an increase in penalty cases as a result of its new authorities. The other development was an August 2016 Government Accountability Report concluding that CBP failed to collect about $2.3 billion in AD/CV duties over the past 15 years and highlighting the problems CBP has faced and continues to face in trying to improve its performance.
 
CBP recently issued regulations setting out the formal process it will use to act on its new authority under the EAPA to investigate allegations of AD/CV duty evasion. This rule allows any interested party, including competing importers and federal agencies, to submit such allegations and sets a fairly low bar for CBP to launch an investigation. CBP has broad authority to conduct these investigations and can impose initial remedial measures that could interrupt a supply chain in as little as 90 days. Any final determination of evasion may be met with not only AD/CV duties but also other enforcement measures such as civil or criminal investigations.
 
Many importers are beginning to take steps to avoid getting caught in CBP’s expanded dragnet. ST&R’s Larry Ordet was cited in a recent American Shipper article as saying importers should conduct internal reviews to verify the classification and origin of their goods and would be well-advised to self-disclose to CBP any problems those reviews reveal. Importers also have until Oct. 21 to raise any specific concerns about the investigation process or timeline set out in CBP’s interim regulations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a115
. L.S. Zengerie, E. Laskey LaRocca & D. Delott: “Chinese Business and Tourist Travelers Must Enroll in Visa System Beginning Nov 29”

 
* Author: Lynda S. Zengerle, Esq., lzengerle@steptoe.com, 202-429-8170; Elizabeth Laskey LaRocca, Esq., elarocca@steptoe.com, 202-429-1351; and Dana Delott, Esq., ddelott@steptoe.com, 202-429-6498. All of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
 
Beginning November 29 nationals of the People’s Republic of China holding 10-year B visas will not be able to travel to the United States without a valid Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) enrollment. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has designated November 29 as the implementation date for the EVUS. The newly-created EVUS enrollment requirement is mandatory for People’s Republic of China passport holders who seek admission to the United States pursuant to 10-year, B-1 (business visitor), or B-2 (visitor for pleasure) visas. Enrollment, where required, must occur prior to commencing travel. Failure to register will result in denial of boarding or denial of entry by land. Thus, the initial implementation of the EVUS requirement has the potential to create significant disruption in China-US travel for the unprepared.
 
The EVUS requirement arises from a November 2014 reciprocal visa validity agreement between the United States and China. Under this reciprocal agreement, the maximum B-1 or B-2 visa validity for Chinese nationals increased from one to 10 years. Visas in these categories are often issued as combined B-1/B-2 visa. Under the terms of this agreement, Chinese nationals must update their biographic information periodically in order to utilize the B-1/B-2 visas for US travel during the ten-year validity period. EVUS enrollments will be valid for up to two years, but will not exceed the validity of the visa or passport.
 
Biographic and Employment Information Required
 
As of this writing, EVUS registration has not commenced nor has CBP publically released the EVUS enrollment questionnaire. CBP characterizes the enrollment as requiring biographical and employment information, similar to what is required in the form DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa Application. CPB targets a mid-October time frame for opening EVUS enrollment. The enrollment fee will be $8.
 
Who Must Enroll?
 
There are two simple parameters, both of which must be met, which mandate EVUS enrollment.
 
  – First, the EVUS requirement applies to individuals traveling on a passport issued by the People’s Republic of China. There are no exceptions. The passport governs, regardless of the individual’s current country of residence or country of origin.
  – Second, the requirement applies to holders of 10-year, B-1/B-2 visas. Chinese passport holders seeking to enter the United States with visas in any category other than B-1/B-2 do not have to enroll in EVUS. Additionally, Chinese passport holders who hold B-1/B-2 visas issued with a one-year validity do not have to enroll.
 
Travel and Business Implications: Impacted Travelers Must Enroll Prior to Departure to US
 
At this time, over 3.9 million Chinese nationals hold 10-year multiple entry B-1/B-2 visas. Businesses that depend upon these individuals and their ability to travel to the United States should be proactive in identifying those who need to enroll in EVUS and facilitating enrollment. Enrollment is required prior to departure, even where the itinerary includes multiple flights. Enrollment will be verified at check-in for the first flight in the trip, and, absent EVUS enrollment, boarding will be denied. As with any technology-based, system, there is a possibility of delay and technical malfunction, particularly at the outset. Thus, the EVUS requirement needs to be considered when timing US travel.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a2
16
. R. Stohl: “New Draft on Drone Export Rules ‘More Problematic’ Than Original”

(Source: Defense News)
 
* Author: Rachel Stohl, Senior Associate, Stimson Center, rstohl@stimson.org, 202-464-2679.
 
Last month, Defense News broke the story of US efforts to negotiate a joint declaration for the export and subsequent use of armed, or “strike-enabled,” drones. Now, a revised version of the declaration is circulating and sources report it will be launched in early October at the United Nations.

However, this new US draft, shared with me by foreign diplomats, is more problematic than the original.

While the revised version is similar in content to the original draft presented to governments last month – and contains five principles for the export and subsequent use of armed or strike-enabled unmanned aerial vehicles (a switch from the prior version’s use of unmanned aerial systems) – it contains nine noticeable additions and four rewrites of existing text.

These new text additions actually weaken the existing text, inserting qualifiers and exceptions. Adding words like “relevant” and “voluntary” – and adding caveats such as “none of which should be construed to undermine the legitimate interest of any State to indigenously produce, export, or acquire such systems for legitimate purposes” and with “due regard to national security considerations” – the joint declaration has evolved into a hollow shell of what could have been a powerful tool to ensure the lawful and responsible use of armed drones.

In this way, the draft joint declaration undermines the existing system and the various international and domestic regulations that already apply to the export and use of UAVs. Indeed, the principles in the draft joint declaration are even less robust than what the administration previously established in its February 2015 US export control policy on UAVs.

Why would the United States lower the bar and propose different standards than are already outlined in the US export policy?

Thus far, seven countries are believed to have agreed to sign onto the joint declaration. Governments I have spoken with say they are under tremendous political pressure to give the Obama administration their support, even if they disagree with the language and the approach.

Critics of the joint declaration, including governments that spoke off the record, were deeply troubled by the possibility that the declaration could provide a blank check for future use and exports of drones. Some are concerned that the joint declaration serves to effectively legitimize past US drone use, claiming that such actions – many of which remain controversial – were consistent with international humanitarian and human rights law, and that future actions would follow the same principles. Indeed, “responsible use” in the declaration implicitly indicates that those signing on are conducting responsible and legal action today.

Other governments are concerned that there would be no accountability for previous US drone use, and that the declaration would allow other countries to adopt practices and indeed justifications similar to those employed by the United States. Governments could then claim that they signed onto the declaration and thus demonstrated their commitment to using drones responsibly.

In short, there is a fear that the joint declaration sanctions unilateral action against perceived threats in secret and without a declaration of war, a dangerous precedent that the United States has perpetuated.

The administration concludes the draft declaration by resolving to continue discussions on how best to ensure the responsible transfer and use of UAVs. The draft does not, however, provide any insight as to when or where these discussions will take place, or what form they will take. Nor does the administration provide details on what it hopes the discussions will lead to, or what the end result will be. In short, the joint declaration refers to a future process (which is a good thing) but without any guidance for fulfilling that objective and no incentive for governments to continue the discussion.

Simply put: If the joint declaration essentially allows governments to check the box that they have addressed global drone standards, why would they deem it necessary to pursue more standards in the future?

Although it is understandable that the Obama administration likely sees the joint declaration as a legacy issue and demonstrates a commitment to developing international standards, the draft as it is currently written does not go far enough to ensure that the administration places the drone program on firmer footing before it leaves office. Rather, the joint declaration removes any motivation for continued conversations on establishing international standards and norms for drone use and export in the future.

If done well, clear international principles can establish a framework for determining when drone use and transfer are responsible. They can provide a transparent process by which governments can be held accountable. If done poorly, however, principles can provide a free pass to governments and allow them to act with impunity. The Obama administration’s commitment to developing common standards and international norms on drone use and export is commendable, but the content of the current joint declaration diminishes the potential impact of such standards.

Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a3
17.
R.C. Burns: “I’ll See You in C.U.B.A.”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, 202-624-3949,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
)
 
Several people have been wondering if I would write something about the allegation that Trump may have violated the Cuban embargo back in 1998. This blog expresses no opinion on political campaigns or figures, so I hesitate to wade into this other than as an opportunity to talk about how the Cuban sanctions are structured. So, for purposes of this post, I will take as hypothetically true for discussion the allegation, which has not been admitted by the Trump campaign, that in 1998 Trump asked consultants to go to Cuba on his company’s behalf to explore business opportunities there and that he later reimbursed their travel.
 
To begin with, it has to be observed that there is a five-year statute of limitations on criminal and civil penalties related to the Cuba embargo. As a result, the possibility of a criminal prosecution or civil penalties if there was a violation, has long past.
 
The relevant prohibition of the Cuba sanctions is the oddly phrased prohibition in section 515.201 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. That section prohibits any person “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” from engaging in specified transactions that “involve property in which [Cuba], or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this section had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.” Those specified transactions are transfers through banking institutions, foreign exchange transactions, dealings in property and transfers of property outside the United States.
 
So the first question is whether asking consultants to go to Cuba to explore business opportunities there for your company violates that. Certainly when in Cuba, those consultants will have dealings in property in which Cubans have an interest – they’ll do that the minute they check into a hotel or drink a mojito. But does the U.S. person who simply asks them to go to Cuba by that request transfer anything through banks, engage in a foreign exchange transaction, deal in property or transfer property outside the United States? It would not seem so, which makes it hard to see a violation of this rule as written by sending consultants to Cuba.
 
The second question is whether the language in section 515.201 prohibits somebody from reimbursing the travel expenses of someone who has traveled to Cuba. It seems to me that there is a good argument that it does not. Unlike the mere travel request, this reimbursement transaction does involve dealing in property as well as a banking transaction.  But it’s hard to see that it involves any property in which a Cuban has or had an interest. No Cuban has any interest in the money paid to the traveler after he has left Cuba and has already made payments to hotels and restaurants in Cuba.  And that money seems to be the only property involved in the transaction. Clearly, the consultants engaged in one of the specified transactions involving Cuban property when they paid the hotel bill in Cuba, but it’s not so clear that, once the hotel was paid, any Cuban has or had any interest in the money used later to reimburse the traveler.
 
That being said, let me say that OFAC, which enforces these rules, takes the position that the reimbursement somehow or other does “involve” the Cuban hotel, which is, by my view, something like saying the butterfly that spreads its wings in Africa is involved in the hurricane that slams into the Outer Banks. In the end, of course, OFAC’s opinion, even if I think it stretches the meaning of “involve,” will control.
 
But, you say, since the consultants are violating the Cuban embargo, would Trump, if he sent them to Cuba and reimbursed them, have violated the embargo by conspiring with them or by aiding and abetting them in the violation of the sanctions? That is not clear either. The penalties established for violations of the Cuban embargo are set forth in section 501.701.  That section prohibits and penalizes violations of the rules, but does not include a penalty for aiding and abetting a violation, conspiring with someone to violate, or causing a violation. This is in contradistinction to the parallel provision in the Iran sanctions, for example, which punishes anyone who “violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation” of the rules.
 
Again, I have to be clear that OFAC is not troubled by the niceties of the language of the Cuban embargo rules themselves, but would unambigously take the position that both sending the consultants to Cuba and the reimbursement of their travel expenses after they return, if that in fact occurred, would violate the Cuban sanctions.  So, kids, don’t try this at home.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TrainingEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
18. ECTI Presents United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar Series in Miami FL, 5-8 Dec

(Source: Jill Kincaid; jill@learnexportcompliance.com)
 
* What: United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar Series in Miami, FL
* When: EAR/OFAC Seminar: Dec 5-6, 2016; ITAR Seminar:  Dec 7-8, 2016
* Where: Miami, FL: Doubletree Ocean Point Resort & Spa
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker Panel: John Black, Greg Creeser & Steve Wagner
* Register: Here, or Jessica Lemon, 540-433-3977, jessica@learnexportcompliance.com.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TE_a219
. Friday List of Approaching Events

(Sources: Event sponsors.) 
 
Published every Friday or last publication day of the week. Send events to
apbosch@fullcirclecompliance.eu
, composed in the below format:

* DATE: PLACE; “TITLE;” SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT (email and phone number)
 
Continuously Available Training:
* Executive Masters: “
International Trade Compliance
;” University of Liverpool;
exed@liverpool.ac.uk
;
+44 (0) 20 768 24614
* E-Seminars: “
US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls
;” Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 
* On-Line: “
Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)
;” Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “
Webinars On-Demand Library
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
 
Training by Date:

* Oct 3-6: Amsterdam NL: “United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) (for EU and other non-US Companies);” ECTI;jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Oct 4: North Reading MA; “Real-World Implementation of the New Export Control Definitions and DCS Rules” Massachusetts Export Center
* Oct 4: Wash DC; “
Stopping Evasion is Great, But What Does That Mean?
;” Miller & Chevalier, The Association of Women in International Trade and the Customs Lawyers Association

* Oct 4: Webinar; “NISP Administration & Policy Analysis (NAPA) Industry Insider Threat Workshop;” Dept. of Defense/Defense Security Service

* Oct 5: Leeds UK; “Intermediate Seminar;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Oct 6: Leeds UK; “Beginners Workshop;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Oct 6: Leeds UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Oct 9-11: Grapevine TX: “DFW Fall Conference;” ICPA

* Oct 10: Webinar; “Exports 101;” Foreign Trade Association

* Oct 11: Webinar; “NISP Administration & Policy Analysis (NAPA) Industry Insider Threat Workshop;” Dept. of Defense/Defense Security Service

* Oct 12: Laredo TX; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census;
shawn@m-palm.com

* Oct 12: Farmington Hills MI; “Harmonized Tariff Schedule – Classifications;”
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; bwhite@sttas.com

* Oct 12-13: Miramar FL; “7th Maritime/Logistics Seminar;” ABS-Consulting; albert@abs-consulting.net; 954-218-5285.

* Oct 12-13: New Orleans; “
Critical Compliance: Jurisdiction/Classification, Auditing & Recordkeeping
;” Export Compliance Solutions (ECS);
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018

* Oct 13: Farmington Hills MI; “NAFTA Qualification, Compliance and Recordkeeping (Non-Automotive);”
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; imeyer@sttas.com

* Oct 13-14: London; “
WorldECR Export Controls and Sanctions Forum 2016
;” WorldECR;
Mark.Cusick@WorldECR.com 

* Oct 13: Webinar; “Creative Uses of Standby Letters of Credit and Other Security Tools for Exporters” Massachusetts Export Center

* Oct 17-20: Huntsville AL; “
EAR/ITAR/OFAC Compliance
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Oct 18-19: New Orleans; “
ITAR/EAR Critical Compliance Jurisdiction/Classification Auditing/Recordkeeping
” Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018

* Oct 18-19: San Francisco; “9th West Coast FCPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference;” American Conference Institute

* Oct 18-19: Washington, DC; “International Technology Transfers, Cloud Computing, and Deemed Exports;” American Conference Institute; americanconference.com/techtransfers OR 1-888-224-2480

* Oct 19: London; “Control List Classification – Dual Use;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation; denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Oct 19-20: Oslo Norway; “US Defense Contracting and DFARS Compliance;” C5

* Oct 20: London; “Making Better License Applications;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Oct 20: Lowell MA; “Essentials of Harmonized Tariff Classification and Free Trade Agreement Compliance” Massachusetts Export Center

* Oct 20: Webinar; “Conflicts Between EU and US Export Rules;” ECTI; danielle@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Oct 24-25: Arlington VA; “2016 Fall Conference;” Society for International Affairs; admin@siaed.org 

* Oct 25: Troy MI; “Incoterms;” East Michigan District Export Council
* Oct 25: Webinar; “NISP Administration & Policy Analysis (NAPA) Industry Insider Threat Workshop;” Dept. of Defense/Defense Security Service

* Oct 31-Nov 2: Wash DC; “
Commerce/BIS Update 2016 Conference on Export Controls
;” U.S. Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security;
UpdateConference@bis.doc.gov
; 202-482-6031

* Oct 31-Nov 3: Wash DC; “US Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Nov 1: Webinar; “NISP Administration & Policy Analysis (NAPA) Industry Insider Threat Workshop;” Dept. of Defense/Defense Security Service

* Nov 2: Chicago; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/ Census & M-Palm; shawn@m-palm.com 

* Nov 3-4: Amsterdam International Trade & Compliance Conference;
Email Claudia Wehmeijer to Request an Invitation; Baker McKenzie

* Nov 6-7: Singapore; “
Singapore Conference
;” International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 8: London; “Control List Classification – Military;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 8: Webinar; “NISP Administration & Policy Analysis (NAPA) Industry Insider Threat Workshop;” Dept. of Defense/Defense Security Service
* Nov 9: Cerritos CA; “CTPAT Internal Auditor Training Program;” Foreign Trade Association

* Nov 9: London; “Making Better License Applications;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 


* Nov 9: Sturbridge MA; “Export School Fast Track Certificate Program” Massachusetts Export Center

* Nov 10-11: Shanghai; “
ICPA China Conference
;” International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 13-15: Miami FL; “
Conference of the Americas
;” Florida Customs Brokers & Freight Forwarders; 
info@fcbfconference.com
; 305-499-9490

* Nov 14: Long Beach CA; “44th Annual Golf Tournament;” Foreign Trade Association

* Nov 14-16: London; “Expert Industry and Regulatory Advice for Solutions to Export Controls’ Global Compliance Risks;” Informa Maritime

* Nov 14-17: Phoenix AZ; “
EAR/ITAR/OFAC Compliance
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Nov 15-16: Santa Clara, CA, and webinar; “Year-End Review of Import/Export Developments;” Baker & McKenzie; Register Here; or call Lillian Han415-576-3061lillian.han@bakermckenzie.com 

* Nov 15: Westborough MA; “Essentials of Export Logistics & Regulatory Compliance” Massachusetts Export Center

* Nov 15: Webinar; “NISP Administration & Policy Analysis (NAPA) Industry Insider Threat Workshop;” Dept. of Defense/Defense Security Service

* Nov 16: Manchester UK; “Intermediate Seminar;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 17: Manchester UK; “Beginners Workshop;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Nov 17: Manchester UK; “Making Better License Applications;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Nov 17: Manchester UK; “Control List Classification Combined Dual Use and Military;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 24: London; “
Cyber Export Controls 2016
;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 30: London; “Control List Classification – Dual Use;”

UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk

* Nov 29-Dec 2: Washington, D.C.; “
33rd International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
“; American Conference Institute
* Dec 1: London; “Making Better License Applications;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Dec 2: Wash DC; “
SIA Holiday Party
;” Society for International Affairs

* Dec 5-8: Miami FL; “
EAR/ITAR/OFAC Compliance Seminar Series
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Dec 7: Boston; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;”
Dept. of Commerce/Census
& M-Palm;
shawn@m-palm.com  

* Dec 7: London; “Intermediate Seminar;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Dec 8: London; “Beginners Workshop;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Dec 8: London; “Making Better License Applications;”
UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Dec 9: Boston MA; “Export Expo” Massachusetts Export Center

* Dec 14: Wash DC; “In-House Industry Seminar;” Dept. of State/DDTC; DDTCInHouseSeminars@state.gov

* Dec 16: Webinar; “Navigating the Intersection of HR and Trade Compliance” Massachusetts Export Center

* Jan 23-26: San Diego, CA; “
EAR/ITAR/OFAC Compliance Seminar Series
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Mar 13-15: Newport Beach CA; “2017 Winter Back to Basics Conference;” Society for International Affairs

* Mar 20-23: Singapore; “
United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) (for Asia-Pacific and other non-US Companies)
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Jun 12-15: San Francisco; “
United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a120. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)
 
Notable birthdays:
 
* Truman Capote (Truman Garcia Capote, born Truman Streckfus Persons, 30 Sep 1924 – 25 Aug 1984, was an American novelist, screenwriter, playwright, and actor. Many of his works are recognized literary classics, including the novella Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and the true crime novel In Cold Blood, which he labeled a “nonfiction novel”.  Capote began writing short stories at age 11, and wrote his first novel at age 16.  He never attended college.  At least 20 films and television dramas have been produced of Capote novels, stories, and plays.
  – “Failure is the condiment that gives success its flavor.”
 
* Buddy Rich (Bernard “Buddy” Rich, 30 Sep 1917 – 2 Apr 1987, was an American jazz drummer and bandleader.)
  – “So, practice, particularly after you’ve attained a job, any kind of job, like playing with a four piece band, that’s… an opportunity to develop.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
A minister told his congregation, “Next week I plan to preach about the sin of lying. To help you understand my sermon, I want you all to read Mark 17.” The following Sunday, as he prepared to deliver his sermon, the minister asked for a show of hands, wanting to know how many had indeed read Mark 17. Nearly every hand went up. The minister smiled and said, “Mark has only sixteen chapters. I will now proceed with my sermon on the sin of lying.”
  — Dan Andersson, Kasukabe, CA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EN_a221. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  Changes to applicable regulations are listed below.
 
*
ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS
: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment:
15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm
 
*
CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment:
30 Sep 2016: 81 FR 67140-67144: Notice of Arrival for Importations of Pesticides and Pesticidal Devices

* DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M
  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and canceled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM  (Summary here.)

* EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774 
  – Last Amendment: 20 Sep 2016: 81 FR 64693-64698: Revisions to the Entity List; and 81 FR 64655-64692: Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates   

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: 81 FR 31169-31171: Burmese Sanctions Regulations  
 
*
FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR)
: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment: 15 May 2015; 80 FR 27853-27854: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Reinstatement of Exemptions Related to Temporary Exports, Carnets, and Shipments Under a Temporary Import Bond 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
here.
  – The latest edition (9 Mar 2016) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR contains all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, and Census/AES guidance.  Subscribers receive revised copies every time the FTR is amended.  The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website.  BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR.  Please contact us to receive your discount code. 
 
*
HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA)
, 1 Jul 2016: 19 USC 1202 Annex.  (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)
  – Last Amendment: 30 Aug 2016; Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1612, containing 4,692 ABI records and 935 harmonized tariff records. 
  – HTS codes for AES are available
here
.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
here.
 
*
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR)
: 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130
  – Latest Amendment: 29 Sep 2016: 81 FR 66804-66807: RIN 1400-AD95; Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Tunisia, Eritrea, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Other Changes
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 29 Sep 2016) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III.  The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index and over 700 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, DDTC guidance, and explanations of errors in the official ITAR text.  Subscribers receive updated copies of the BITAR in Word by email, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment.  The BITAR is the essential tool of the ITAR professional.  The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website.  Government employees with “_.gov” addresses, military members with “_.mil” addresses, and employees of institutions of higher learning with “_.edu” email addresses are eligible for a 50% discount.  BAFTR subscribers receive a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please contact us to receive your discount code.  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., edited by James E. Bartlett III and Alexander Bosch, and emailed every business day to approximately 7,500 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* INTERNET ACCESS AND BACK ISSUES: The National Defense Industrial Association (“NDIA”) posts the Daily Update on line, and maintains back issues since August, 2009 here.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.

* CAVEAT: The contents cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.

* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top