;

16-1121 Monday “The Daily Bugle”

16-1121 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 21 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 Amends EAR, Clarifications and Revisions to Military Aircraft, Gas Turbine Engines and Related Items License Requirements 
  2. State/DDTC Amends ITAR, USML Cats. VIII & XIX 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: “Join Last ECR Teleconference on 23 Nov, Special Topic: The Military Aircraft and Engines Final Rules” 
  3. DoD/DSCA Posts Addition to SAMM and Policy Memoranda, Week 13-19 Nov 
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  1. ST&R Trade Report: “Post-Liquidation Preference Claims Eased for Select FTAs and Preference Programs” 
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “USTR Launches Review to Consider Reinstating Argentina to GSP” 
  3. Wall Street Journal: “CFIUS Again Objects to a China-Europe Deal” 
  1. D.M. Edelman: “New Format for Filing CJ Requests via New Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS)” 
  2. S. Moritz: “A Detailed Marketing Plan Can Save Your Compliance Program” 
  3. T. Feddo, J. Burnett & J.M. Waite: “Previewing Trade Policy in the Trump Administration, Part 3: Sanctions” 
  4. R.C. Burns: “Friday Grab Bag” 
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 114 Jobs Posted 
  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 (21 Nov 2016), FACR/OFAC (4 Nov 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (21 Nov 2016) 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a11. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Clarifications and Revisions to Military Aircraft, Gas Turbine Engines and Related Items License Requirements

 
81 FR 83114-83126: Clarifications and Revisions to Military Aircraft, Gas Turbine Engines and Related Items License Requirements
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This rule modifies the Commerce Control List (CCL) entries for two types of items: Military aircraft and related items, and military gas turbine engines and related items. The rule adds clarifying text to the descriptions of the types of military aircraft controlled on the CCL. The lists of items that are subject only to the anti-terrorism reason for control are clarified and expanded. This rule, which is being published simultaneously with a rule by the Department of State, is based on a review of Categories VIII and XIX of the United States Munitions List (USML). This rule and the related Department of State rule are part of a plan to review rules published as part of the Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). This rule also furthers the retrospective regulatory review directed by the President in Executive Order 13563.
* DATES: This rule is effective December 31, 2016.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas DeFee or Jeffrey Leitz in the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Munitions Control Division by telephone at (202) 482-4506 or by email at Thomas.DeFee@bis.doc.gov or Jeffrey.Leitz@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   In 2015, the Departments of Defense, State and Commerce reviewed the implementation of these changes to assess the effectiveness and utility of the 2013 amendments. That review included soliciting public comments by the Department of Commerce (see 80 FR 11315, March 2, 2015) and the Department of State (see 80 FR 11314, March 2, 2015).
   After an interagency review of those public comments by the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, the Departments of Commerce and State published proposed rules to revise treatment of aircraft and gas turbine engines along with related parts, components, accessories and attachments, materials, software, and technology on the USML and the CCL (see 81 FR 6791 and 81 FR 6797, February 9, 2016, for Commerce and State’s rules respectively). BIS’s proposed rule is referred to in this document as the “February 9 rule.” BIS is publishing this final rule, after an interagency review of the public comments on its proposed rule, simultaneously with a final rule being published by the Department of State.
   This rule also furthers the retrospective regulatory review directed by the President in Executive Order 13563. …
   This rule also adds technology for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of materials controlled in ECCN 9C619.b to ECCN 9E619.b, which imposes the national security (NS Column 1), regional stability (RS Column 1), antiterrorism (AT Column 1) and United Nations embargo reasons for control on the technology and limits use of License Exception STA to “build to print” technology. …
   This rule also updates the text of ECCN 9A610.w to reflect amendments made to that paragraph since the February 9 rule was published by adding references to “pneumatic” and “fly-by-light” flight control systems (see 81 FR 19026, April 4, 2016). These additions were made to align the descriptions in ECCN 9A610.w with the description of such systems in the current Equipment, Software And Technology Annex of the MTCR. …
 
  Dated: November 8, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a22. State/DDTC Amends ITAR, USML Cats. VIII & XIX

Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
81 FR 83126-83135: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. Munitions List Categories VIII and XIX
* AGENCY: Department of State.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: As part of the President’s Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative, the Department of State amends the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise Categories VIII (aircraft and related articles) and XIX (gas turbine engines and associated equipment) of the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to describe more precisely the articles warranting control on the USML. The revisions contained in this rule are part of the Department of State’s retrospective plan under E.O. 13563.
* DATES: This final rule is effective on December 31, 2016.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2792; email DDTCPublicComments@state.gov. ATTN: ITAR Amendment–USML Categories VIII and XIX.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), U.S. Department of State, administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130). The items subject to the jurisdiction of the ITAR, i.e., “defense articles,” are identified on the ITAR’s U.S. Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR 121.1). With few exceptions, items not subject to the export control jurisdiction of the ITAR are subject to the jurisdiction of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR,” 15 CFR parts 730-774, which includes the Commerce Control List (CCL) in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774), administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Commerce. Both the ITAR and the EAR impose license requirements on exports and reexports. Items not subject to the ITAR or to the exclusive licensing jurisdiction of any other set of regulations are subject to the EAR.
 
  – Revising U.S. Munitions List Category VIII
  – Revising U.S. Munitions List Category XIX
 
     Dated: November 14, 2016.
Thomas M. Countryman, Acting Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, Department of State.

[Editor’s Note:  The above amendment is included in today’s revised edition of Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (BITAR), which has been sent to BITAR subscribers.  To subscribe, go to
www.FullCircleCompliance.eu and follow the BITAR prompts.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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


* Commerce; Industry and Security Bureau; NOTICES; Meetings: President’s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration [Publication Date: 22 November 2016.] 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

On Wednesday, November 23, Kevin Wolf, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration, will host the last call-in session of the Bureau of Industry and Security’s highly successful ECR teleconference series.  

The November 23 call will include an overview of the Commerce final rule, Military Aircraft, Gas Turbine Engines and Related Items License Requirements; Clarifications and Revisions and the State bookend final rule revising USML Categories VIII and XIX.  The Commerce and State final rules will be published on November 21 and available on the BIS website prior to the November 23 call.  Callers are highly encouraged to print copies of the Commerce and State final rules to reference during the call.         

During the call, Assistant Secretary Wolf will also share his thoughts on what has been accomplished under the Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative. He will also highlight the important roles that industry outreach and the public’s participation have played in the success of the reform effort.

Questions for the special ECR teleconference should be submitted in advance of the call to ecrweekly@bis.doc.gov  

The teleconference is free and will start at 2:30 p.m., Eastern time.  The same call in number and passcode used for previous ECR weekly teleconferences will be used for this special ECR teleconference.  To access the teleconference dial 1-888-455-8218 and then dial the participant code: 6514196.  To access the teleconference from outside of the United States, use the international call-in number (this is a toll call at your international call rate): 1-212-547-0330, and then dial the participant code: 6514196.  

Click below for links to the Commerce and State final rules:

  – Commerce final rule
  – State final rule 

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

 
  – This memorandum provides the annual ECL, TOEFL, and OPI country exemption list.

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

OGS_a46. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a17
. ST&R Trade Report: “Post-Liquidation Preference Claims Eased for Select FTAs and Preference Programs”

 
After a recent ruling by the Court of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection appears to be preparing to allow post-liquidation preference claims under a wider range of free trade agreements and preference programs. In addition, some such claims previously rejected by CBP could be revived.
 
In August 2014 CBP issued a guidance letter to the ports that, without the statutorily required notice and comment, changed a long-standing practice relating to the filing of certain post-liquidation preference claims. In this guidance CBP concluded that protests could not be used to make an initial claim under the Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or any free trade agreements not subject to the special rules found in 19 USC 1520(d), which include FTAs with Singapore, Australia, Israel, and Jordan. This change had no effect on imports under the agreements listed in 520(d), for which post-entry claims can (and must) be filed within one year from the date of importation.
 
CBP claimed that the August 2014 change was necessitated by two earlier court decisions, both of which concerned post-entry claims made under NAFTA. CBP suggested that the one-year time frame specified in 520(d) was not a limitation on the importer’s right to file a post-entry claim but was instead a grant of privilege that was therefore not available to programs or FTAs not mentioned in 520(d).
 
In a recent court decision (Zojirushi America Corp. v. United States) the Court of International Trade rejected CBP’s rationale and questioned its focus on NAFTA, which is only one of several agreements, along with CAFTA-DR and the U.S.-Korea FTA, named in 520(d). However, the CIT ultimately did not render a decision in the underlying case due to jurisdictional issues (namely, that CBP had not yet denied the protest at issue, which it had improperly rejected as not protestable).
 
While CBP has not revoked its August 2014 guidance, either formally or informally, it appears headed in that direction. In the meantime, importers should be able to file initial claims under GSP, AGOA, and other programs and FTAs not named in 520(d) via post-liquidation protests, although caution should be used until the issue is formally addressed by CBP. In addition, certain previously rejected protest claims (those found to be not protestable by CBP) could be revived.

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

NWS_a28. ST&R Trade Report: “USTR Launches Review to Consider Reinstating Argentina to GSP”

 
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has initiated a review to consider reinstating Argentina’s status as a beneficiary developing country 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.
 
A public hearing on this review will be held Jan. 10 in Washington, D.C. Comments, pre-hearing briefs, and requests to appear at this hearing are due by Dec. 23, and post-hearing briefs are due by Jan. 24.

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

NWS_a39. Wall Street Journal: “CFIUS Again Objects to a China-Europe Deal”

(Source: WSJ.com, subscription required.) [Excerpts.]
 
For the second time in a little more than a year, the secretive U.S. agency that vets global deals on national-security grounds is objecting to a Chinese takeover of a European company.
 
Late Friday, technology company Aixtron SE of Germany said that it was informed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, about “unresolved U.S. national security concerns regarding the proposed transaction.”
 
Aixtron hasn’t said exactly why the U.S. objected. But the committee has become increasingly active in overseas deals, weighing in when it perceives a potential threat to U.S. security, even if neither side in a potential transaction is American.
 
Friday’s disclosure came after Germany’s economics ministry late last month withdrew its earlier approval and reopened a review of the €670 million ($710 million) acquisition of Aixtron by Grand Chip Investment GmbH, the German unit of Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund LP of China.
 
People familiar with the matter said the German government’s step came after it was notified by U.S. authorities of their concerns over certain technologies.
 
Both moves were made amid heightened security concerns among Western governments over a high-tech shopping spree by Chinese companies. Still, CFIUS’s role in weighing in on the deal is unusual because it doesn’t technically have jurisdiction over either of the two companies involved.
 
CFIUS declined to comment on Sunday.
 
The planned Aixtron acquisition is the latest deal involving non-U.S. companies to attract the committee’s attention.
 
Dutch electronics company Royal Philips NV early this year canceled a planned $2.8 billion sale of its lighting-component and automotive-lighting unit to a Chinese investor, after Philips disclosed in October 2015 that CFIUS had raised “certain unforeseen” concerns with that deal. …

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a110. D.M. Edelman: “New Format for Filing CJ Requests via New Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS)”

 
* Author: Doreen M. Edelman, Esq., Baker Donelson LLP, 202-508-3460, dedelman@bakerdonelson.com
 
As the export agencies still strive to implement one system for export licensing and compliance, DDTC has come one step closer by creating a new on-line process for filing CJ requests.  As of November 16 at 5 pm, DDTC will no longer accept paper filings for CJ requests.  This morning, November 21,  DDTC started accepting electronic filings through the new Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS). This new system will replace DTRADE and EFS and will allow the user to save drafts and copy previously inputted data.  Yay! Progress is made one small step at a time.

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

COMM_a211. S. Moritz: “A Detailed Marketing Plan Can Save Your Compliance Program”

(Source: FCPA Blog)

* Author: Scott Moritz, Protiviti, scott.moritz@protiviti.com, 212-603-8356
 
Companies that make and sell consumer products — toothpaste, smart phones, cars, movies, food, medicines, golf clubs, cosmetics, whiskey, shoes, jewelry, and so on — spend billions of dollars promoting their goods.
 
There are free samples, coupons, gift cards, event passes, and more for consumers and distributors.
 
Can anyone really confirm all the money was expended lawfully and for the intended purposes?
 
What if the company produces a popular cognac and its distributor in Shanghai requests 10 cases of the product and $50,000 for a tasting event? What if, at the same time, the distributor also has been negotiating with the airport authority to place the product in the duty-free shops at the international airports?
 
How can the company be sure its very expensive cognac wasn’t simply gifted to a government official or that invoices for the tasting event weren’t inflated?
 
Sometimes sales distributors are rewarded with gift cards in addition to their normal incentive compensation if they meet sales milestones. But in some parts of the world, gift cards are a common way to “thank” government officials and SOE employees, especially around some holidays. So gift cards have the potential to go very wrong.
 
Big events are full of FCPA risks. The Olympics, the World Cup and FIFA matches, Formula One races, golf tournaments, tennis and cricket matches — they all rely heavily on corporate sponsorship.
 
With the sponsorship comes hospitality tents, junkets, VIP access and seating, tickets, transportation, and sometimes accommodation and related expenses. Providing those perks to invited guests can be construed as offering or giving something of value in an effort to gain an unfair business advantage.
 
Historically, marketing incentive programs are predicated on trust, with very little detail about what the local subsidiaries or distributors are expected to do to ensure things are above board and don’t create FCPA or Bribery Act liability.
 
Clearly, companies that engage in marketing and promotional activities in foreign markets should always be able to demonstrate that:
 
  – They have thoughtfully considered all of the potential bribery risks associated with the various marketing activities in which value is being transferred directly or on their behalf, and
 
  – They have risk-appropriate controls in place to ensure that the events and other marketing activities they funded actually took place, and that the products that were sampled were provided in strict adherence to written agreements with third parties and were in alignment with the detailed marketing plans with which the company has agreed.
 
With the big sports events, it’s critical to submit a list of proposed attendees to someone in legal or compliance, not just to executives in the sales organization.
 
The list should come with some background on who the proposed guests are, whether they might be a “foreign official” as the company has defined that term, and whether the company has any business before that official at the time or which the official might influence through his or her office.
 
Nearly all companies have marketing plans. But many of those marketing plans are vaguely worded and lack compliance accountability. They don’t explain what local marketing activities are planned, how the activities will be documented, and who’ll be responsible for ensuring that the marketing money or products are used in alignment with the company’s code of ethical conduct and anti-corruption program.
 
A detailed marketing plan that sets out obligations of those charged with executing it is essential. That’s how companies can ensure there’s an adequate trail to monitor or audit to confirm that marketing activities aren’t putting the organization at risk.

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

COMM_a312. T. Feddo, J. Burnett & J.M. Waite: “Previewing Trade Policy in the Trump Administration, Part 3: Sanctions”

(Source: Alston & Bird LLP)

* Authors: Thomas Feddo, Esq., thomas.feddo@alston.com, 202-239-3521; James Burnett, Esq., james.burnett@alston.com, 202-239-3364; and Jason M. Waite, Esq., jason.waite@alston.com, 202-239-3455. All of Alston & Bird LLP.
 
Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, a prominent theme was the candidate’s willingness to address perceived shortcomings in the United States’ trade policies and dealings with foreign countries. These reforms, should they come to pass, would have significant impact on U.S. trade relations and are likely to invite legal challenges at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and under other agreements. For companies engaged in international trade activities, Trump’s proposals have the potential to disrupt global supply chains, investment decisions and business operations in multiple markets.
 
In addition to proclamations regarding trade agreements and threats to aggressively enforce the United States’ trade remedy laws and regulations, the Trump campaign also tackled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) among the U.S., EU and Iran, calling the deal “disastrous” and threatening to alternatively “rip up” or “police that contract so tough they don’t have a chance.” Other embargos and economic sanctions regimes, including those targeting Cuba and Russia, were called into question during Trump’s campaign, leaving their status an open question following Trump’s inauguration.
 
In the third of a three-part series, we discuss the Trump Administration’s possible actions on sanctions regimes on Iran, Cuba and Russia. Part 1 explored current trade agreements. Part 2 analyzed China policy.
 
Stability, Then Change
 
As a general matter, and excepting the potential development of a new national security crisis, U.S. economic sanctions programs can be expected to remain largely stable for the first year of the Trump Administration as it fills out its staff of foreign policy advisors and develops and promulgates its larger policies and approach to various national security challenges.
 
Given the robust use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool in recent years, and the increasing involvement by Congress through sanctions-related legislation (e.g., Iran-related statutes, the Magnitsky Act and Venezuela- and North Korea-related legislation), one can expect that these tools will remain go-to options for the Trump Administration.
 
There are, however, several economic sanctions programs likely to see more imminent changes-such as Iran and Cuba, and perhaps Russia-related restrictions. While during the presidential campaign the Trump team tended not to elaborate on various sanctions programs, these three countries were often at least a general topic of discussion for campaign rallies and the presidential debates-and often with criticism of the Obama Administration’s policies and the sanctions’ current state of play.
Iran
 
The Obama Administration has pledged to continue implementing and honoring the terms of the JCPOA- negotiated between the”P5+1″and Iran and implemented on January 16, 2016-through January 20. Given that the Administration has roughly two more months at the helm, there is certainly the possibility that the State and Treasury Departments will undertake additional public steps to give further momentum to one of the President’s signature foreign policy accomplishments.
 
To the extent the Administration does so, there is the distinct possibility that those steps would be reversed after January 20. Both Trump and his vice presidential running mate Mike Pence have repeatedly campaigned on the JCPOA, pledging as recently as last month to “rip up the Iran deal” and to “marshal our allies” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC last March, Trump declared that his “number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” In the same speech, however, he also pledged to “enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced.” Other Trump advisors have recently said (such as foreign policy advisor Walid Phares to the BBC on November 10), “‘Ripping up’ is maybe a too strong [a] word. … He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore [a] few issues or change [a] few issues. And there will be a discussion; it could be a tense discussion.”
 
The JCPOA was not presented by the Obama Administration as a treaty requiring ratification, but rather simply as an Executive agreement not requiring Congress’s approval. Because of a procedural sequence in the Senate, the final agreement was not considered for either a vote of support or rejection. For these reasons, there is little impediment to a President withdrawing the U.S. from the deal. The Trump Administration could also ask the new Congress early in 2017 to again conduct a vote on the JCPOA, ostensibly providing it with some level of political support for rejection and showing political unity on the matter.
 
In any event, while one option is to withdraw and declare the JCPOA dead, there is some initial indication that “ripping up” the deal would not be immediate. Moreover, such an immediate step could get ahead of the new Administration fully establishing its foreign policy team, having an opportunity to assess the JCPOA for itself and communicating to the world its intended big-picture approach to nuclear proliferation and state sponsors of terror and other hot-button foreign policy challenges. Iran would be very likely to assert that an immediate withdrawal by the U.S. is justification for Iran to also step away from its commitments regarding uranium enrichment.
 
An alternative approach is for the Trump Administration to focus on enforcement and potential triggering of the so-called “snapback” of some or all of the economic sanctions under several Iran-related statutes currently waived by the President in financial and banking activities, insurance services, energy and petrochemical services, shipping and shipbuilding, precious metals, the automotive sector and transactions with certain listed individuals. In recent months, Iran has already been deemed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be in violation of its heavy-water commitment under the deal, although the IAEA has described the circumstances as not a significant violation of the deal’s terms. The country has also been actively testing its ballistic missile program throughout the year, a matter not covered by the JCPOA.
 
Importantly, snapback cannot be blocked under the JCPOA and its associated United Nations Security Council resolution unless the parties to the deal unanimously vote to maintain sanctions relief (that is, the U.S. may veto a resolution to maintain sanctions relief). It would also remain to be seen whether any of the other signatories of the deal would in fact reimpose sanctions alongside the U.S. On November 14, 2016, European Union foreign ministers issued a statement emphasizing that they remained committed to the JCPOA and would “promote growth in trade and investment.” Irrespective of whether other parties to the JCPOA honored the agreement in the face of a U.S. withdrawal, any snapback of U.S. secondary sanctions would again place tight restrictions-including the risk of losing access to the U.S. financial system or being named on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List-on foreign financial institutions’ and foreign entities’ engagement with Iran. Even under the current JCPOA’s terms, a number of major foreign financial institutions have hesitated to reengage in business with Iran-largely due to current U.S. sanctions that remain in place and issues with the lack of transparency of the Iranian business environment.
 
The new Administration might also take a harder line as reflected through a much tougher policy or interpretation of already promulgated Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) JCPOA-related licenses (such as either under the commercial aviation “statement of licensing policy,” General License H or pending applications for specific licenses) and additions of other entities to the SDN List.
 
In the meantime, it is highly likely that Congress will seek to influence U.S.-Iran policy for the foreseeable future, including during the upcoming lame-duck session before the end of December. This includes the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), the underpinning of many secondary sanctions, which is set to expire on December 31. Further, many in Congress have been highly critical of both the deal and its implementation, and numerous Iran-related sanctions bills have been proposed by both the Senate and House of Representatives. These bipartisan e orts include ISA reauthorization, new terrorism or nonnuclear sanctions focused on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or ballistic missile testing, respectively, legislation regarding Iranian access to the U.S. dollar and barring the United States’ purchase of heavy water from Iran. While some of these may not be considered during the lame-duck session and the current Administration would be unlikely to sign them-warning that even acting on a clean ISA reauthorization might be perceived by Iran as reneging on the deal-it seems more likely than not that similar bills will get a rapid and receptive congressional audience in 2017.
 
With this context, the JCPOA commitment by the parties to the deal to avoid “any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely” impact normalization of trade with Iran could be tested. In sum, Iran sanctions and the JCPOA face some degree of uncertainty in 2017.
 
Cuba
 
During the past two years, the Obama Administration has worked to normalize relations with Cuba. While many statutory sanctions against the island nation remain in place, including broad prohibitions against U.S. business involving the Cuban government, President Obama, through the modifications of OFAC’s Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and the Export Administration Regulations, has loosened the reins on prior prohibitions, including through the expansion of permissible travel and business engagement by U.S. companies. However, the opening of Cuba to U.S. business remains limited to certain types of commercial activities, such as those related to travel, agriculture, medicine, telecommunications and certain types of infrastructure projects.
 
Any momentum brought on by recent changes to the CACR may potentially be ground to a halt by the Trump Administration. A week ahead of the election, Trump stated that his Administration would “cancel Obama’s one-sided Cuban deal.” Because the relaxation of Cuban sanctions has been accomplished through the modification of regulations, the new President will be able to rescind the sanctions relief unilaterally without consultation with Congress. Based on his recent rhetoric regarding Cuban sanctions, Trump may be inclined to do so, creating uncertainty on the availability of opportunities for U.S. businesses in Cuba.
 
In any event, outside of the selected business activities now addressed by government licensing policies, broad-based U.S. business engagement with Cuba and lifting of the trade embargo will require legislation, which appears unlikely to advance, at least in the early stages of the Trump Administration.
 
Russia
 
Any change to Ukraine-related sanctions involving Russia remains an open question. A likely scenario is that President Trump will attempt to engage with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a number of issues, almost certainly including the fight against the Islamic State in Syria. There might also be an opportunity for the new Administration to engage with Russia regarding its past aggression and conduct in Ukraine and the Crimea region in an attempt to emerge with some kind of deal. Were such engagement to succeed, the lifting or easing of Ukraine-related sanctions would likely be part of the equation. According to the Washington Post, last July Trump “said he ‘would be looking into’ the possibility of recognizing Crimea, which Moscow annexed in 2014, as Russian territory.” But given the intense skepticism and distrust by members of Congress, U.S. military leaders and the intelligence community regarding Russia and its actions around the world, without any resolution or amelioration of the current situation in Ukraine and the Crimea region the current sanctions prohibitions could remain in place for the foreseeable future. At this juncture, it appears that much may depend both on whether Putin escalates provocative actions in Ukraine or the Baltics during the lame-duck period or early months of the new presidency and on what overarching foreign policy approach the new Administration communicates.

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

COMM_a413. R.C. Burns: “Friday Grab Bag”
(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, 202-624-3949,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
)
 
Fri, 18 Nov 2016.  Here are a few recent developments that you may have missed:
 
  – The House voted yesterday to nullify the impact of a license granted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) in September which would allow Boeing to sell civil aircraft to Iran.
  – On Tuesday the House passed a bill to extend the Iran Sanctions Act for another 10 years. The bill, weighing in at around 50 words, makes no changes to the Act beyond extending its expiration date.
  – The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2016 was passed by the House on Wednesday. Named after the alias of a military photographer who has taken pictures of the conflict in Syria, the act would require blocking of foreign persons, including presumably the Russians, who provide “significant” support to the Government of Syria or the Central Bank of Syria. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if the new Administration carries out its apparent desire to cooperate with Russia in Syria. Although Russia is fighting ISIS there, it is also supporting the current Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.
  – The temporary general license granted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) to permit exports to ZTE notwithstanding its inclusion on the Entity Listwas extended by BIS today until February 27, 2017. ZTE was put on the Entity List after it diverted U.S.-origin goods to Iran.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a114
. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 114 Jobs Posted

(Source: Editor)  


 
Published every Monday or first business day of the week.  Send openings in the following format to
apbosch@fullcirclecompliance.eu
.
 
COMPANY; LOCATION; POSITION TITLE (WEBLINK); CONTACT INFO; REQ ID

#” New listing this week:

 

* Amazon; London, UK;
Senior Trade Compliance Program Manager (M/F)
; Requisition ID: 429019

* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Compliance Investigator
; Requisition ID: 432560
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Compliance Investigator
; Requisition ID: 432561
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Compliance Investigator
; Requisition ID: 432564
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Sanctions Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 431298

* Amazon; Seattle WA;
NA Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 256357

* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Prime Air Trade Compliance Program Manager; Requisition ID: 395658

* Amazon; Singapore;
Sr. Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 441734

* Aramco Services Company; Houston TX;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 295802


* Bendix; Elyria OH;
Trade Compliance Lead
; Requisition ID: 13130

* Boeing; Arlington (Crystal City) VA; 
Trade Control Specialist; Requisition ID: 1600018970

* Boeing; Bristol, UK;
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 1600018482


# Boeing; Englewood, CO;
Trade Specialist 3
; Requisition ID: 793846
# Boeing; Neu-Isenburg, Germany;
Trade Specialist 4 m/f
; Requisition ID: 760960
*
Bose Corporation; Framingham MA;
Senior Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: R1867

* Bunn-O-Matic Corporation; Springfield IL;
Global Logistics Analyst
;
employment.openings@bunn.com
; GO1678

* Catalent; Swindon, Bathgate or Bolton, UK;
International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 0020306
* Continental; Manila,
Philippines;
Head of Transportation and Foreign Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 42475BR


* Coriant; Naperville IL;
Sr Mgr of Global Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 11353

* Crane Currency; Nashua NH;
Import/Export & Logistics Manager
; Requisition ID: 2016-1459
* CSL Behring; King of Prussia PA;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: R-031549

*
DRS Technologies; Dayton OH;
Senior Trade Compliance Specialist
III
; Requisition ID: 61027

* DRS Technologies; Germantown MD;
Senior Trade Compliance Manager
;
Requisition ID: 54749

# Edgewell Personal Care; Milford CT; 
FTA Export Compliance And Security Lead; Requisition ID: NAM00808

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Bellevue WA;
Audit Manager – Compliance
; Requisition ID: 8215BR

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Bellevue WA;
Sr. Trade Compliance Manager – Sensors & Systems (Engineering)
; Requisition ID: 8791BR
# Esterline Technologies Corporation; Brea, CA;
Specialist II Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID:
8887BR

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Brea CA;
Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 7333BR

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Paso Robles CA;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 6148BR

* Expeditors; Bangkok, Thailand; Regional Trade Compliance Manager – Indochina & Philippines
* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; 

Trade Compliance Specialist II

info@exportsolutionsinc.com

# Facebook; Menlo Park CA;
Head of Global Trade Compliance Operations

* FD Associates; Senior Export Compliance Associate,
jobs@fdassociates.net

* FLIR Systems; Arlington VA;
Director of Defense Trade Licensing & Compliance

* FLIR; Arlington VA;
Sr. Defense Trade Licensing & Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 7924
* FLIR; Billerica MA; 
Sr. Defense Trade Licensing & Compliance Analyst
;
Requisition ID: 8008

* General Dynamics; South Wales, UK;
Senior Trade Compliance Officer
; Requisition ID: 6079

* Google; Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
Export Compliance Program Manager

* Henderson Group Unlimited Inc.; Wash DC;
Commodities Jurisdiction Analyst
;
alannasmith@hendersongroupinc.net


#
Ingersoll Rand; San Diego, CA;
Trade Compliance Manager (Trilingual: English, Spanish, and Portuguese)
; Requisition ID: 1610632

* Intel; Santa Clara, CA;
Global Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: JR0814909

* Jacobs; Houston TX;
Trade Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: REF00008A

* Lam Research Corporation; Fremont CA:
Foreign Trade Analyst 6
; Requisition ID: 12079BR

* Leica Biosystems; Nußloch, Germany;
Trade Compliance Manager (Import-Export)
; Requisition ID: COR000633

* Linde; Stewartsville NJ;
Compliance Administrator; Requisition ID: 916130

* Lumber Liquidators; Toano VA;
Compliance Auditor
; Requisition ID: 913

* Lutron; Coopersburg PA;
Trade Manager-Export
; Requisition ID: 2926

* Lutron; Coopersburg PA; Trade Compliance Coordinator; Requisition ID: 2834

* MACOM; Lowell MA;
Trade Compliance Analyst 1
; Requisition ID: 1529

* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; 16000DYY

* Meggitt (Erlanger), LLC; Erlanger KY;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 22005

* Meggitt PLC; Los Angeles CA;
Export Control/Trade Compliance Administrator
; Requisition ID: 22591
* Meggitt Control Systems; North Hollywood CA;
Trade Compliance Officer
;
jenn.avritt@meggitt.com
; Requisition ID: 23720

* Meggitt Advanced Composites Limited; Shepshed, UK;
Trade Compliance Officer
; Requisition ID: 22122

* Mentor Graphics; Fremont CA;
Senior Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 5129
# Merck KGaA; South West England, UK;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 153405

* Microsoft; Redmond WA;
Trade Director, Regulatory Compliance & Standards
;
rybeli@microsoft.com
; Requisition ID: 973167

* Moog; East Aurora NY;
Export Compliance Manager
;
anihill@moog.com
; Requisition ID: 161913

* Northrop Grumman T
echnology Services Sector, Advanced Defense Services (ADS) Division
; International Posting (Saudi Arabia);
Manager International Trade Compliance 1
(Saudi Arabia)
; Requisition ID: 16003577

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; El Segundo CA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 4
; Requisition ID: 16024349 
 

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Falls Church VA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3/4
; Requisition ID: 16026961

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Falls Church VA;
International Trade Compliance Manager 1
; Requisition ID: 16023413

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Linthicum MD;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 16013233

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Redondo Beach CA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 4
; Requisition ID: 16024309

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Rolling Meadows IL;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 2
; Requisition ID: 16024684


* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Rolling Meadows IL;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 16023994
# Pall Corporation; Portsmouth, UK;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: SHA000201

* Paraxel; Berlin, Germany;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID:
pare-10055069

* PerkinElmer; Krakow, Poland or Zaventem, Belgium;
Regional Trade and Compliance Specialist – Belgium or Poland based

* PerkinElmer; Waltham MA;
International Trade Compliance Associate, Informatics


* Raytheon; Arlington VA;
Export Licensing Manager I
; Requisition ID: 88665BR
*Raytheon; Arlington VA;
Export Licensing Manager I
; Requisition ID: 87321BR
* Raytheon; El Segundo CA;
Import Control & Compliance Administration
; Requisition ID: 87699BR

* Raytheon; Fullerton CA;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 85521BR

* Raytheon; Indianapolis IN;
Principal SC Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 84932BR

* Raytheon; Waltham MA;
Sr Principal SC Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 86169BR

# Smith and Wesson; Springfield MA;
International Sales Administrator
; Requisition ID: SCB-1223
# Solenis; Wilmington, DE;
Global Trade Compliance NAFTA Specialist
; Requisition ID: 2016-5783

* SpaceX; Wash DC;
Counsel – Export Compliance Officer


* State Department; Wash DC;
Supervisory Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: HRSC/T/PM-2017-0003

* Tecomet; Lansing MI;
Export Control Coordinator – EAR/ITAR
; Requisition ID: 1539


* TE Connectivity; Middletown PA;
Senior Director Global Trade Services
; Requisition ID: 2016-73314

* Tenneco; Edenkoben, Germany;
Global Trade Compliance Manager (m/w)
; Requisition ID: 176871-846

* Tesla Motors; Fremont CA;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 40738 

* Textron Systems; Wilmington MA;

Principal Export Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 242857


* Thales; Piscataway NJ;
Manager, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: R0012077

* Thales; Piscataway NJ;
Trade Compliance Specialist/Facility Security Officer; Requisition ID: R0012102

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Madison WI;
Import/Export Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: 41440BR

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Matamoros, Mexico;
Import/Export Supervisor
; Requisition ID: 39750BR

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Shanghai, China;
Compliance Director, Greater China
; Requisition ID: 38520BR
* ThermoFisher Scientific; Shanghai, China;
Sr. Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 37066BR

# Toyota; Dallas TX;
Export Control Analyst
; Requisition ID: TMS003DS

* Tractor Supply Company; Brentwood TN;
Customs Process Manager
;
nknott@tractorsupply.com
; Requisition ID: 16-986

* Troy Corporation; Florham Park NJ;
Global Trade and Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 306


* United States Pharmacopeia; Rockville MD OR Frederick MD;
Trade Compliance Specialist
;
Meaghan Ireland –
mci@usp.org
;
Requisition ID: 709-679

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
Manager, ITC-Authorizations
; Requisition ID: 22846BR  

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
International Trade Compliance Auditor; Requisition ID:
34285BR
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
Program Manager, Customs; Requisition ID:
31331BR


* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Phoenix AZ; Sr Analyst, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 30058BR 


* University of Florida; Gainesville FL; Asst. Director Research Admin. – Export Control; Requisition ID: 499437 

* XPO Logistics; Greenwich CT;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst


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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

(Source: Editor) 

 
*
Goldie Hawn (Goldie Jeanne Hawn, born 21 Nov 1945, is an American actress, director, producer, and occasional singer. She won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for the 1969 film, Cactus Flower, and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress for the title role in the 1980 film Private Benjamin.)

  – “I have witnessed the softening of the hardest of hearts by a simple smile.”

 

*
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet,  21 Nov 1694 – 30 May 1778, known by his nom de plume Voltaire was a French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher famous for his wit, he wrote hundreds of philosophical works, including Candide, as well as seven major historical books and nearly 60 plays.

  – “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

  – “The best is the enemy of the good.”

 

Monday is pun day:

 

Did you hear about the cat who ate the cheese and then waited for the mouse with baited breath?

 

Q. Who were the first people to eat pie?

A. The pioneers.  

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

EN_a316
. 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: 21 Nov 2016 (effective 31 Dec2016): 81 FR 83114-83126: Clarifications and Revisions to Military Aircraft, Gas Turbine Engines and Related Items License Requirements 

  
*
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: 21 Nov 2016 (effective 31 Dec 2016): 81 FR 83126-83135: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. Munitions List Categories VIII and XIX
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 21 Nov 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 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 8,000 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