;

16-1109 Wednesday “The Daily Bugle”

16-1109 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

TOP
The 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. Commerce/BIS Updates Statements of Legal Authority for the EAR 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DoD/DSS Posts DIA Polygraph Security Notice 
  4. State/DDTC Posts Notice on IT Modernization Effort Communication 
  5. State/DDTC Posts Notice on Name Change and Consolidation 
  6. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning the Situation in the Ukraine 
  1. Expeditors News: “CBP Released a Catalog of Available ACE Reports” 
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “U.S. to Consider Reinstating Argentina to GSP Eligibility” 
  1. L.M. Friedman: “Anyone Curious About Withdrawing from NAFTA?” 
  2. S.N. Nandivada: “DoD Issues Proposed Rule Regarding Withholding and Dissemination of Unclassified Technical Data and Technology” 
  3. R.C. Burns: “New Administration May Change Landscape of U.S. Trade and Export Policy” 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Oct 2016), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (4 Nov 2016), FACR/OFAC (4 Nov 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (12 Oct 2016) 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a11. Commerce/BIS Updates Statements of Legal Authority for the EAR

 
81 FR 78714-78715: Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal authority paragraphs in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cite the most recent Presidential notice continuing an emergency declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is a non-substantive rule that only updates authority paragraphs of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
* DATES: The rule is effective November 9, 2016.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Kook, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-2440.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   The authority for parts 730 and 744 of the EAR rests, in part, on Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001–Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786 and on annual notices continuing the emergency declared in that executive order. This rule revises the authority paragraphs for the affected parts of the EAR to cite the most recent such notice, which the President signed on September 15, 2016.
   This rule is purely non-substantive and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. …
 
   Dated: November 3, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)


* President; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS; Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of November 8, 2016) [Publication Date: 10 November 2016.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

 
On Jan. 1, 2017, DIA will begin implementing a phased change to its polygraph policy. All contractors or employees of contractors identified to perform work for DIA, and where the work requires access to sensitive compartmented information, must either successfully complete a counterintelligence-scope polygraph (CSP) examination (in accordance with Intelligence Community Policy Guidance 704.6 and Security Executive Agent Directive 2) or have on record a reciprocally acceptable polygraph examination from another federal agency prior to being granted unescorted access to DIA systems, facilities or information.
 
DIA will implement this policy change using the following schedule:
 
  – 1 January 2017: National Capital Region (NCR) approximately 50-mile radius extending outward to Ft. Meade, MD and Charlottesville, VA
  – 1 April 2017: Continental United States (CONUS) including NCR contractors
  – 1 July 2017: Outside CONUS including CONUS contractors and NCR
 
Regardless of geographical assignment, all polygraph testing will be scheduled through the special security officer (SSO), unit security officer (USO) or your contracting officer representative (COR), respectively, to the DIA Central Processing Center, Reston, Virginia.
 
Refusal without reasonable cause (as determined by the Director of Security for DIA) to undergo polygraph examination; failure to cooperate during a polygraph examination; or purposeful noncooperation during a polygraph examination – including confirmed use of polygraph countermeasures – could result in additional review or an adverse security determination.
 
If you have polygraph-related questions, please contact ~SEC5_Polygraph@dodiss.ic.gov (JWICS) or ~SEC5_Polygraph@dia.smil.mil (SIPR).
 
All other questions related to this notice should be directed to the SEC-3 Customer Service Desk at 703-735-1842 (comm) or by email: sec3customerservice@coe.ic.gov (JWICS) sec3customerservice@dia.smil.mil (SIPR) or sec3customerservice@dodiis.mil (NIPR).
 
This notice rescinds the polygraph policy cited in previous Security Notice (SEC-2014-09), dated June 11, 2014.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a45. State/DDTC Posts Notice on IT Modernization Effort Communication
(Source: State/DDTC)
 
All communication related to the IT Modernization effort can now be found on the IT Modernization Outreach page.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a56. State/DDTC Posts Notice on Entities Name Change and Consolidation
(Source: State/DDTC)
 
  – Rolls-Royce Marine Electrical Systems Ltd Consolidation
  – Safran Owned Global Subsidiaries Change Name
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a67. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning the Situation in the Ukraine
 
Regulations:
  – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1955 of 8 Nov 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
 
Decisions:
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1961 of 8 Nov 2016 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

NWS_a18. Expeditors News: “CBP Released a Catalog of Available ACE Reports”
(Source: Expeditors News)
 
On November 7, 2016 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) #16-000941 announcing the release of an ACE Reports Catalog published by the ACE Reports team.
 
The ACE Reports Catalog, “provides a comprehensive inventory of all public “canned” reports currently available in ACE.” The ACE Reports team issued the catalog to help the trade community be able to ascertain all of the available ACE reports.
 
The Catalog is separated into five columns that include:
 
  – Subject Area- e.g. Entry Summary or Cargo Release
  – Report Number
  – Report Name
  – Report Description- includes account types that have access
  – List of Objectives- e.g. AD/CVD, or Cargo Release

This Catalog will be updated periodically with new available reports, updates will be notated by the month and year of issuance.
 
The CSMS and link to the Catalog can be accessed here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a29. ST&R Trade Report: “U.S. to Consider Reinstating Argentina to GSP Eligibility”
 
During the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-Argentina Council on Trade and Investment held Nov. 7 under the bilateral trade and investment framework agreement, U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman announced that USTR will initiate a public review process to determine whether Argentina once again meets the eligibility criteria under the Generalized System of Preferences. The U.S. suspended Argentina from GSP in 2012 for failing to enforce arbitral awards with two U.S. companies, but Argentina settled those awards in late 2013 and has therefore asked the U.S. to consider reinstating its GSP eligibility.
 
Also at the meeting the two sides:
 
  – renewed their mutual commitment to cooperate on a range of multilateral issues, including World Trade Organization dispute settlement, trade facilitation, and reducing global excess steel capacity;
  – discussed future collaboration on agricultural biotechnology;
  – agreed to establish an Innovation and Creativity Forum for Economic Development to discuss issues of mutual interest, including geographical indications, industrial designs, and the importance of intellectual property protections for small and medium-sized enterprises, and to hold the first meeting of this forum in early December in Buenos Aires; and
  – acknowledged positive engagement in the areas of regulatory coherence and trade facilitation under the U.S.-Argentina Commercial Dialogue held in October.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a110. L.M. Friedman: “Anyone Curious About Withdrawing from NAFTA?”

(Source:
Customs Law Blog
)
 
* Author: Lawrence M. Friedman, Esq., Barnes, Richardson & Coburn LLP,
Lfriedman@barnesrichardson.com
, 312-297-9554.
 
For some reason, I have been asked what it would take for the U.S. to withdraw from NAFTA or another trade agreement. Funny how that comes up today, the day after the U.S. presidential election.

The answer is not 100% clear.

In Article 2205, the NAFTA says the US can withdraw with 6-months written notice. If that happens, the agreement stays in place between Mexico and Canada. How that happens is a question.

The US would certainly be out of the agreement going forward, but most of the implementation of NAFTA was through legislation. That legislation might still be in place until Congress removes it.

Arguably, the legislation might automatically repeal itself. 19 USC 3451 says that if a country withdraws, the amendments made to implement NAFTA “cease to have effect with respect to that country.” It is not clear whether “that country” can be the US or whether that implies that Canada or Mexico has left NAFTA. There would be much litigation. Other trade agreements likely work the same way, but I have not looked.

Also, if the President tries to impose new duties, he runs up against WTO tariff bindings. US law, specifically so-called Section 301, lets the US increase duties or take other actions to address violations of trade agreements or unfair practices by our trading partners. Countries that feel increased duties are not consistent with WTO obligations can seek relief through the WTO dispute settlement process and, of authorized, retaliate. The potential for serial grievances and retaliation is what we call a “trade war.”

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

COMM_a211. S.N. Nandivada: “DoD Issues Proposed Rule Regarding Withholding and Dissemination of Unclassified Technical Data and Technology”

 
* Author: Sandeep N. Nandivada, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, snandivada@mofo.com, 703-760-7797.
 
On October 31, 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a proposed rule (81 Fed. Reg. 75352) to address DoD’s procedures for the withholding and dissemination of unclassified export-controlled technical data and technology.  The proposed rule focuses on regulating DoD’s public release of export-controlled technical data and technology, and DoD’s requirements for the transfer of such technical data and technology to government contractors.  Of particular importance, the proposed rule would (1) clarify DoD’s ability to withhold export-controlled technical data and technology from public disclosure; (2) implement a robust qualification framework for U.S. and Canadian contractors seeking access to export-controlled technical data and technology; and (3) create a new DoD sanction regime for export control violations by allowing DoD to disqualify contractors from access to export-controlled technical data and technology where there is “substantial and credible information” of misconduct.  Such changes would reflect a significant shift in the export control landscape, empowering DoD with export control enforcement power that historically has been reserved mostly for the Department of Commerce and Department of State.
 
Withholding of Export-Controlled Technical Data and Technology
 
The proposed rule clarifies that DoD is not required to release export-controlled information publicly, such as under the Freedom of Information Act, because public release of such information would be the equivalent of an export to foreign persons.  Specifically, under the proposed rule, the Secretary of Defense would be authorized to:
 
withhold from public disclosure any technical data and technology with military or space application in the possession or under the control of the DoD, if such technical data and technology may not be exported lawfully without a license, exception, exemption, or other export authorization, in accordance with U.S. export control laws and regulations.
 
In other words, the Secretary may withhold export-controlled technical data and technology where the export of such data and technology requires a license, exception, exemption, or other export authorization.  However, the proposed rule also clarifies that the Secretary may not withhold unclassified information “regarding DoD operations, policies, activities, or programs, including the costs and evaluations of performance and reliability of military and space equipment.”  To the extent such information contains export-controlled technical data or technology that warrants withholding, the Secretary may remove only the export-controlled technical data or technology from whatever is disclosed publicly.
 
The Proposed Qualification Framework
 
The proposed rule also would implement additional DoD requirements and qualifications for U.S. and Canadian contractors seeking access to export-controlled technical data and technology.  Specifically, under the proposed rule, DoD may disclose export-controlled technical data and technology to U.S. government contractors when: 

  (1) the contractor is certified by the United States-Canada Joint Certification Office; and
  (2) the technical data and technology “relate[s] to a legitimate business purpose for which the contractor is certified.” 

The proposed rule would similarly authorize disclosure to certified Canadian contractors “when a legitimate business relationship has been established between the government and the contractor.”[FN/1]


To receive the necessary certification and qualify for access to export-controlled technical data and technology, U.S. and Canadian contractors would have to file:

  (1) DD Form 2345, “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement,” with the United States-Canada Joint Certification Office;
  (2) documentation to verify that the contractor is a legitimate business entity [FN/2]; and
  (3) a business activity statement detailing the business purpose for which access to technical data or technology is requested. 

Based on the information submitted, DoD would be authorized to release export-controlled technical data and technology to qualified contractors unless:

 
  – The contractor’s qualification for technical data and technology has been temporarily revoked because DoD has determined, based on the receipt of “substantial and credible information,” that the contractor has violated U.S. export control law, violated its certification, made a certification in bad faith, or omitted or misstated a material fact;
  – DoD determines that the requested technical data and technology is unrelated to the business purpose for which the qualified contractor is certified; or
  – The contractor requested the technical data or technology for a purpose other than to permit the contractor to bid or perform on a contract with a federal agency.
 
As discussed in the next section, DoD’s proposed authority to temporarily revoke a contractor’s qualification is particularly problematic for government contractors.
 
DoD Sanction Regime for Export Control Violations
 
DoD’s proposed qualification framework would allow it to withhold export-controlled technical data and technology from a contractor when that contractor’s qualification for access to such data and technology has been “temporarily revoked” based on “substantial and credible information” of certain export-related violations.  The proposed rule also provides that this temporary revocation becomes a disqualification if the contractor is unable to rebut the “substantial and credible information” underlying the revocation within twenty days.  This sanction regime is problematic for several reasons.
 
First, the proposed rule would allow DoD to sanction contractors for conduct that otherwise may already be the subject of investigation by other agencies, such as the Department of State, which ordinarily is the agency charged with investigating defense-related export control violations.  As a result, contractors could face multiple inquiries by different agencies regarding the same issues, requiring potentially duplicative and burdensome efforts by the contractor to satisfy agency demands.
 
Second, DoD’s sanction regime could have a chilling effect on contractor self-disclosures.  Contractors are encouraged to voluntarily self-disclose export control violations under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), as well as under the civil False Claims Act (to the extent such violations cause a false claim for payment to be submitted to the government).  Under the proposed rule, such self-disclosures also would apparently result in a revocation of qualifications for access to controlled technical data and technology, which would inhibit the contractor’s ability to bid or perform on a contract with a federal agency.  Consequently, it is possible that a contractor faced with a potential self-disclosure issue may decide that the risk of non-disclosure is outweighed by the risk of losing access to needed technical data or technology.
 
Third, if DoD considers a contractor’s “initial disclosure” to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) or Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) of a possible export control violation and internal investigation to be “substantial and credible information” regarding an export control violation, it could be in significant tension with the BIS and DDTC export control regulations.  At a minimum, it would put a faster clock on internal investigations associated with potential violations (for example, the ITAR allows 60 days between initial notification and full disclosure), and seems likely to discourage contractors from providing substantial detail in their initial notifications, lest their access to controlled information be suspended by DoD while they investigate.
 
Fourth, DoD’s sanction regime presents significant due process concerns.  Although the proposed rule would offer contractors an opportunity to respond in writing to the information upon which any revocation is based before being disqualified, such opportunity would arise only after the contractor’s qualifications have been temporarily revoked.  Moreover, where a contractor is not able to resolve DoD’s concern within twenty days, the temporary revocation of qualifications becomes a disqualification.  Thus, under the proposed rule, contractors would have their qualifications revoked before they have had an opportunity to respond to the DoD’s information, and then would have only twenty days to compile the information to rebut such information and clear their names.  In effect, DoD would be punishing contractors before they have had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the adverse information levied against them.
 
Conclusion
 
Despite the significant changes highlighted above, the proposed rule purports to not require any additional controls on the disclosure of technical data and technology by private contractors or individuals beyond that already required under U.S. export control laws and regulations, or in contracts or other agreements.  The proposed rule would leave unaltered the obligation of DoD Components to protect contractors’ proprietary technical data and technology, and would not affect the disclosure of unclassified technical data and technology by DoD Components pursuant to “official agreements or formal arrangements with the U.S. Government (USG), or pursuant to USG-licensed transactions involving such entities or individuals.”
 
Nevertheless, it is at least clear that the proposed rule would introduce significant changes to the manner in which export control laws and regulations are enforced.  If the proposed rule is finalized, DoD would have a significant role in enforcing export control laws and regulations, including the ability to independently sanction contractors for export control violations.  The proposed rule therefore has the potential to further complicate an already complex and challenging export control regime.  Government contractors therefore should carefully review the proposed rule and consider providing comments to address the potential consequences of DoD’s proposed changes.
 
Comments on the proposed rule are due by December 30, 2016.
 
—————-
  [FN/1]
To be eligible for access, the Canadian contractor must be referred to in and governed by the Technical Data Control Regulations of the Canada Minister of Justice, and be registered at the United States-Canada Joint Certification Office.
  [FN/2]
The proposed rule provides that a contractor may demonstrate its legitimacy by providing a copy of its State/Provincial Business License, Incorporation Certificate, Sales Tax Identification Form, Controlled Goods Registration letter or certificate, or other documentation.

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

COMM_a312. R.C. Burns: “New Administration May Change Landscape of U.S. Trade and Export Policy”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, 202-624-3949,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
)
 
Although it is impossible to tell whether the new Trump administration will follow through on its campaign promises to irrevocably alter the landscape of U.S. trade with foreign countries, businesses should realize that the new administration’s power to do so is broad and should act accordingly in the coming weeks and months to take steps to limit the impact that these changes could have on their business and foreign trade.  Of course, it remains possible that the views of the new administration’s economic advisers may prevail against the implementation of some of these promises.
 
(1) Trade Agreements
 
At various times throughout the campaign, candidate Trump promised to withdraw from the WTO, to terminate NAFTA, and to impose retaliatory tariffs on China and Mexico.  Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2411 gives the President, acting through the United States Trade Representative, the unilateral power, among other things, to “suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of, benefits of trade agreement concessions” and to “impose duties or other import restrictions” without further authorization from Congress.
Unapproved trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“T-TIP”), are likely now dead on arrival.   At this point the Obama administration has yet to submit the implementation bill required to start the clock on Congressional action on TPP under fast-track, so the fate of the TPP will be decided by the next Congress and the Trump administration.  If the Trump administration does not submit to Congress a draft implementation bill, as required by fast track, and it seems likely that he will not, TPP will not go into effect.
 
(2) Iran Sanctions
 
Candidate Trump repeatedly expressed his desire to back out from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”), otherwise simply known as the Iran nuclear deal.   Since the JCPOA was entered into by the United States by executive action, the Trump administration can withdraw from the deal unilaterally and immediately, and there is a good chance that it will.
If that happens, we can count on the regulatory changes adopted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) to implement the JCPOA to be reversed.  These include General License H, which permits foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to engage in trade with Iran. They also include the relaxed policy on civil aviation sales to Iran.
 
The issue here will be both the time frame for such reversal and whether there will be any grandfathering in place.  Historically, OFAC has been slow to act and has included limited grandfathering provisions which either allow certain agreements with the sanctioned country to proceed or provide a wind-down period to terminate those agreements.  Even with these possibilities, U.S. businesses selling civil aircraft to Iran and permitting foreign subsidiaries to trade with Iran should, at a minimum, put those activities on hold and probably begin considering plans to terminate these activities.
 
(3) Cuba Sanctions
 
Candidate Trump also vowed to roll back the Obama administration’s actions that have relaxed many of the sanctions against Cuba. This would include the removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
 
The removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism was largely symbolic, so putting it back on the list will not have significant impact.
 
Under section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2780, any country put on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is automatically subject to an arms embargo. Of course, even after Cuba was removed from the list, there was no chance any arms shipments from the U.S. to Havana would be approved in the foreseeable future.
 
Section 6(j) of the defunct Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. App § 2405, requires a license for exports to state sponsors if the export could make a “significant contribution to the military potential of such country” or if it could “enhance the ability of such country to support acts of international terrorism.” And, in those instances, Congress must be given notice of such exports thirty days in advance. None of the changes in the Cuba sanctions contemplated any such exports.
 
Section 7205 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, imposes a license requirement for shipping those goods to a sanctioned country if that country is also on the state sponsor of terrorism list. However, that section specifically identifies Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and imposes the license requirement on exports of agricultural products, medicines and medical products to Cuba. So, removing Cuba from the terrorism list did not eliminate the need for exporters to Cuba to continue to file the export notifications required to utilize License Exception AGR for TSRA exports to Cuba.
 
Even if adding Cuba back to the list would not have much impact on trade relations with Cuba, it seems likely that the other recent revisions, such as the general licenses for travel and favorable licensing policy for certain exports such as telecommunications equipment, civil aviation equipment, and certain items in support of Cuba’s private sector, have a good chance of reversal.  The regulations permitting entry into executory contracts subject to license approval will likely disappear as well.
 
Certainly those planning to use the general travel licenses, should do so as soon as possible.  The changes in licensing policy mean that businesses should also seek licenses for contemplated exports to Cuba as soon as possible, with the understanding that those licenses might be terminated at the same time the favorable licensing policy is reversed.
 
(4) Russia Sanctions
 
At the same time that the new Trump administration is likely to impose stricter controls on Cuba, it may well loosen sanctions on Russia, Cuba’s longtime ally and supporter.   Vladimir Putin has strengthened Russian ties with Cuba and even called for lifting of the U.S. embargo on Cuba.  Although Trump is not likely to heed this request from Putin, there is a stronger chance that Trump’s call for better relations with Russia will lead to the lifting or loosening of the sanctions on the Crimean territory as well as removals from, or elimination of, the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List.  Restrictions on oil-related exports to Russia could be lifted as well.  Putin supporters that were placed on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons might also get a reprieve from the Trump administration.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

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

EN_a214
. 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: 28 Oct 2016: 81 FR 74918: New Mailing Address for the National Commodity Specialist Division, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade; Technical Correction  

* 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: 4 Nov 2016: 81 FR 76859-76861: Amendments to the Export Administration Regulations: Update of Arms Embargoes on Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, and Recognition of India as Member of the Missile Technology Control Regime 

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 4 Nov 2016: 81 FR 76861-76863: Amendments to OFAC Regulations To Remove the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions Regulations and References to Fax-on-Demand Service 
 
*
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.
 
*
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 (Caution — The ITAR as posted on GPO’s eCFR website and linked on the DDTC often takes several weeks to update the latest amendments.)
  – Latest Amendment: 12 Oct 2016: 81 FR 70340-70357: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. Munitions List Category XII and associated sections.
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 12 Oct 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, footnotes to amendments that will take effect next week on 15 November, and again on 31 December, plus a large Index and over 750 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 available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website.  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.

* 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 of this newsletter 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