;

17-0510 Wednesday “The Daily Bugle”

17-0510 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 8 May 2017

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. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to the Central African Republic  
  2. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to the Actions of the Government of Syria  
  3. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to Yemen  
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Certification Outage, 10 May  
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  5. Council of the EU Publishes Program for Foreign Affairs Council on Trade Meeting on 11 May 
  1. Fox Business: “Germany Faces a North Korea Sanctions Violation in Its Own Capital” 
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Rules of Origin Standards for Trade Agreements Recommended by Business Group”  
  3. The Washington Post: “Kim Jong Un’s Rockets Are Getting an Important Boost – from China” 
  1. B. Webb: “Exceptions to Exemptions in Part 126: Considering UK, Australia and Canada” 
  2. H. Wells & N. Brook: “Sanctions: the Brexit Effect” 
  3. J. Dickeson: “Restricted Party Screening And Restricted End Uses” 
  4. Weise Wednesday: “Have There Been Any New Developments in the Trump Administration’s Trade Agenda Since Your Last Blogpost?” 
  1. ECS Presents “Benchmarking Your ITAR/EAR Compliance Program” featuring Gerry Horner, Commerce/BIS; Byron Angvall, The Boeing Company and Christine Lee, UTC in Annapolis MD, 24-25 May 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (27 Jan 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (18 Apr 2017), FACR/OFAC (10 Feb 2017), FTR (19 Apr 2017), HTSUS (7 Mar 2017), ITAR (11 Jan 2017) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to the Central African Republic

(Source: Federal Register)
 
82 FR 21911: Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Central African Republic
 
On May 12, 2014, by Executive Order 13667, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in and in relation to the Central African Republic, which has been marked by a breakdown of law and order, intersectarian tension, widespread violence and atrocities, and the pervasive, often forced recruitment and use of child soldiers, and which threatens the peace, security, or stability of the Central African Republic and neighboring states.
 
The situation in and in relation to the Central African Republic continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on May 12, 2014, to deal with that threat must continue in effect beyond May 12, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13667.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
 
  (Presidential Sig.)
 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 9, 2017. 

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

EXIM_a22. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to the Actions of the Government of Syria

(Source: Federal Register)
 
82 FR 21909-21910: Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions of the Government of Syria
 
On May 11, 2004, pursuant to his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the Syria Account- ability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Public Law 108- 175, the President issued Executive Order 13338, in which he declared a national emergency with respect to the actions of the Government of Syria. To deal with this national emergency, Executive Order 13338 authorized the blocking of property of certain persons and prohibited the exportation or reexportation of certain goods to Syria. The national emergency was modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006, Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008, Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011, Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011, Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011, Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012, and Executive Order 13608 of May 1, 2012.
 
The President took these actions to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, maintaining its then-existing occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining United States and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.
 
The regime’s brutality and repression of the Syrian people, who have been calling for freedom and a representative government, not only endangers the Syrian people themselves, but also generates instability throughout the region. The Syrian regime’s actions and policies, including with respect to chemical and biological weapons, supporting terrorist organizations, and obstructing the Lebanese government’s ability to function effectively, continue to foster the rise of extremism and sectarianism and pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. As a result, the national emergency declared on May 11, 2004, and the measures to deal with that emergency adopted on that date in Executive Order 13338; on April 25, 2006, in Executive Order 13399; on February 13, 2008, in Executive Order 13460; on April 29, 2011, in Executive Order 13572; on May 18, 2011, in Executive Order 13573; on August 17, 2011, in Executive Order 13582; on April 22, 2012, in Executive Order 13606; and on May 1, 2012, in Executive Order 13608, must continue in effect beyond May 11, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared with respect to the actions of the Government of Syria.
 
In addition, the United States condemns the Assad regime’s use of brutal violence and human rights abuses and calls on the Assad regime to stop its violence against the Syrian people, uphold the Cessation of Hostilities, enable the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and allow a political transi- tion in Syria that will forge a credible path to a future of greater freedom, democracy, opportunity, and justice.
 
The United States will consider changes in the composition, policies, and actions of the Government of Syria in determining whether to continue or terminate this national emergency in the future.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
 
  (Presidential Sig.)
 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 9, 2017. 

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

EXIM_a03
EXIM_a33. 
President Continues National Emergency With Respect to Yemen

(Source: Federal Register)
 
82 FR 21905: Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Yemen
 
On May 16, 2012, by Executive Order 13611, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others. These actions and policies threatened Yemen’s peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the political process in Yemen and the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provided for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change.
 
The actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others in threatening Yemen’s peace, security, and stability continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on May 16, 2012, to deal with that threat must continue in effect beyond May 16, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13611.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
 
  (Presidential Sig.)
 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 9, 2017.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a14. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register

[No items of interest noted today.]

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

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

OGS_a36.

DHS/CBP Announces ACE Certification Outage, 10 May

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000269, 10 May 2017.)
 
New ACE Programming
 
There will be an ACE CERTIFICATION Outage this evening, Wednesday, May 10, 2017 from 1700 ET to 2000 ET for infrastructure maintenance.

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

OGS_a47

State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

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

OGS_a58

Council of the EU Publishes Program for Foreign Affairs Council on Trade Meeting on 11 May

 
Place: Justus Lipsius building, Brussels
Chair(s): Christian Cardona, Minister for the Economy, Investment and Small Business of Malta
 
N.B. All times are approximate and subject to change
  +/- 08.30 Arrivals
  +/- 09.00 Doorstep by Minister Christian Cardona
  +/- 10.00 Beginning of the meeting (Roundtable)
 
Adoption of the agenda
 
* Protection against dumped imports and on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the EU (public session)
* Any other business:
  – Temporary Autonomous Trade Measures for Ukraine (public session)
* Approval of the non-legislative list of “A” items
* Preparations for the 11th World Trade Organization Ministerial conference
  – State of play
* Implementation of Free Trade Agreements
  – Orientation debate
* Any other business:
  – EU-Myanmar/Burma Investment Protection Agreement
  – Update on trade relations with Chile, New Zealand and Australia
  – Presentation of the reflection paper on harnessing globalization by 2025
 
  +/- 13.00 Ministerial lunch.  Topic: FTA negotiations with Japan, Mexico and Mercosur
  +/- 15.00 After lunch.  Press conference (live streaming)
 
More Information:

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a19
.

Fox Business: “Germany Faces a North Korea Sanctions Violation in Its Own Capital”

(Source:
Fox Business) [Excerpts.]
 
Germany was scrambling Tuesday to patch up a violation of United Nations sanctions against North Korea in the heart of its own capital.
 
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for years has been leasing an annex of its embassy in downtown Berlin to a hostel, a deal that became a violation of U.N. sanctions passed in November to forbid North Korea from using diplomatic property for commercial purposes. …
 
Now Berlin says it is cracking down on the hostel’s use of the building as a sanctions violation.
 
  “The non-stop nuclear threats from the North Korean government worry us greatly,” said Markus Ederer, a senior official in Germany’s Foreign Office, in a statement released Tuesday. “We have to turn up the pressure in order to get North Korea back at the negotiating table.” … 

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

NWS_2
10. ST&R Trade Report: “Rules of Origin Standards for Trade Agreements Recommended by Business Group”

 
The International Chamber of Commerce has issued a set of eight recommendations for standard rules of origin in preferential trade agreements to further facilitate global trade. There are now more than 400 bilateral and regional PTAs worldwide, the ICC said, and new ones increasingly overlap existing ones, resulting in diverging rules of origin regulations and procedures that are becoming a trade barrier along the entire supply chain. Setting common standards and procedures for cross-border transactions aims to lower costs and increase predictability, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.
 
Kyoto Convention
. Governments party to PTA negotiations should streamline rules of origin and origin procedures by following the provisions of the World Customs Organization Revised Kyoto Convention in line with the principles of the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement.
 
Cumulation
. Common bilateral parties to differing regional agreements should be allowed to share or cumulate origin across trading regions and agreements.
 
Verification
. The WCO, in close cooperation with the private sector, should develop common procedural standards for customs verification of origin documentation under PTAs in the spirit of the provisions of the TFA.
 
Dispute resolution
. Origin disputes under PTAs should not be decided unilaterally by the customs authority of a single trade agreement partner; instead, PTAs should contain provisions for resolution of such disputes within commercially responsive timeframes.
 
Capacity
. Governments preparing to enter a PTA should ensure that there are capacity building programs in place prior to entry into force of the agreement, particularly when dealing with developing and emerging markets.
 
Cohesion
. Standardizing procedural requirements across PTAs makes trade easier and allows business processes along the whole supply chain to be replicated and automated, further reducing trading costs.
 
Negotiations
. Governments should align on the starting point from which to commence PTA negotiations, which would help streamline trade and ultimately reduce costs for business and consumers.
 
Multilateral agreements
. PTAs should be considered as steps toward multilateral agreements, and the streamlining of mega-regional PTA negotiations could create momentum towards broader trade liberalization. 

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

NWS_311.

The Washington Post: “Kim Jong Un’s Rockets Are Getting an Important Boost – From China”

 
When North Korea launched its Kwangmyongsong-4 satellite into space in February last year, officials heralded the event as a birthday gift for dead leader Kim Jong Il. But the day also brought an unexpected prize for the country’s adversaries: priceless intelligence in the form of rocket parts that fell into the Yellow Sea.
 
Entire sections of booster rocket were snagged by South Korea’s navy and then scrutinized by international weapons experts for clues about the state of North Korea’s missile program. Along with motor parts and wiring, investigators discerned a pattern. Many key components were foreign-made, acquired from businesses based in China.
 
The trove “demonstrates the continuing critical importance of high-end, foreign-sourced components” in building the missiles North Korea uses to threaten its neighbors, a U.N. expert team concluded in a report released last month. When U.N. officials contacted the implicated Chinese firms to ask about the parts, the report said, they received only silence. … 

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a01
12. 
B. Webb: “Exceptions to Exemptions in Part 126: Considering UK, Australia and Canada”

 
* Author: Bruce Webb, Esq., Commonwealth Trading Partners bwebb@ctp-inc.com.
 
I want to discuss recent experiences involving the ITAR exemptions for UK, Australia and Canada. Why these specific nations?  Because these country-specific ITAR exemptions are made possible through existing country-to-country agreements as well as treaties relating to defense trade. These arrangements allow for the export of specific defense articles and defense services which meet the strict requirements set forth for each but this is not a carte blanche to export freely. Each transaction must be reviewed to avoid misinterpretation.
 
Recently, while preparing an application for a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) to the UK, I was reminded of the exemptions in ITAR Articles 126.5 (applying to Canada), 126.16 (applying to Australia), and 126.17 (applying to the UK). However, since these exemptions are modified and limited by an extensive list of exclusions contained in Supplement No. 1 to Part 126, this list needs to be closely reviewed to ensure compliance.
 
In this particular case, for a technical data transfer for Naval Equipment, it was expected that the TAA export would be allowed under the requirements of the 126.17 exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. However, when delving deeper into the requirements, a different outcome emerged as an exception to the exemption defined by the Supplement. That sounds like double talk but, to ensure one is properly applying the regulatory requirements to all sets of circumstances, this supplement needs to be closely scrutinized. It is a chart listing specific exclusions for each of the three exemption countries and they do not/not apply to each country equally. Furthermore, the allowance for these exemptions in §126.5, §126.16, and §126.17 are modified by various Supplements to Part 126. For example, Supplement No. 1 states that “Defense articles and services specific to reduced observables or counter low observables in any part of the spectrum” are allowable under the UK exemption but not the Canadian or Australian exemptions. Yet the UK exclusion is limited by ‘Note 2’ within the supplement which further defines “any part of the spectrum” and may exclude a particular type of technology for reduced observables or counter low observables. From that example alone, it is evident that ITAR Part 126, as applied to exemptions for the UK, Australia and Canada, has many twists and turns in its application.
 
In the case mentioned above, the TAA at issue did not qualify for the UK exemption because of the limitations imposed by Supplement No. 1 to Part 126. It showed that reading ITAR requirements for exemptions for our closest allies must be done carefully with particular attention paid to the supplement and its notes in order to ensure compliance with both the exemptions and the exceptions to the exemptions!

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

COMM_a2
13. 
H. Wells & N. Brook: “Sanctions: the Brexit Effect”

(Source:
Clyde & Co)
 
* Authors: Henrietta Wells, Esq.,
henrietta.wells@clydeco.com; and Nigel Brook, Esq.,
nigel.brook@clydeco.com. Both of Clyde & Co, London, UK.
 
Further to the triggering of Article 50 on 29 March 2017, and the start of the two year negotiation period ahead of the UK’s departure from the EU, the three UK Government offices with responsibility for sanctions (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HM Treasury, and the Department for International Trade) have issued a joint consultation paper on the future legal framework for imposing and implementing financial and trade sanctions in the UK (the Consultation Paper).
 
The Consultation Paper sets out the Government’s current plans for a proposed new legal framework, and invites responses to a number of consultation questions.
 
The UK Government does from time to time enact sanctions on its own initiative. For example, the Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2011, which restricted transfers of funds between the UK financial sector and the Iranian financial sector, was made under the auspices of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. However, the existing domestic legislative framework does not allow for the implementation of as broad a range of sanctions as those that are imposed by the EU, which make up the majority of sanctions currently in force in the UK.
 
These sanctions originate in EU legislation, which has direct civil effect in the UK, and is given criminal effect through statutory instruments made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The “Great Repeal Bill” proposed by the Government will preserve all existing EU sanctions in UK law after the 1972 Act is revoked, but will not provide the legislative powers necessary to impose, revise, or lift sanctions.
 
The Consultation Paper does not seek to address any foreign policy matters, such as whether the UK will continue to align itself with sanctions imposed by the EU or other international partners, though it notes that the UK will continue to work closely with its allies and partners to ensure that the application of sanctions is effective. The UK will also continue to implement any new EU sanctions legislation during the two year negotiation period.
 
The Consultation Paper suggests that any new legal framework will likely be formed of two parts:
 
  – Primary legislation, which will create a structure allowing for the imposition of sanctions regimes. This legislation will include measures allowing for the imposition of asset freezes, the adoption of financial and trade restrictions (such as investment bans and export controls), and the implementation of controls in areas such as ports, shipping, airports and aircraft; and
 
  – Secondary legislation, such as statutory instruments, which will put in place the specific measures for individual sanctions regimes, and sanctions designations. Unlike primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament, secondary legislation can be made by persons acting under delegated powers. This allows for the swift implementation of sanctions regimes, including the listing of asset freeze targets.
 
The legislative framework proposed by the Consultation Paper does not suggest that the UK intends to implement additional sanctions programmes or enhanced measures on withdrawal from the EU: the general recommendation is for the maintenance of the “status quo”. There are only a few instances where the revised framework diverges from the current position. These include:
 
  – The creation of a mechanism for sanctioned persons to challenge their UK sanction listing before the Courts. This includes a new “closed material procedure”, to be used in circumstances where the Government has sanctioned an individual or entity on the basis of “sensitive material”. The consultation suggests a procedure similar to that set out in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, where special advocates who have undergone security vetting procedures are appointed, and sensitive material is disclosed only to the presiding Judge; and
 
  – New additional powers for law enforcement to seize funds / assets from a sanctioned person to enable those funds / assets to be frozen: for example, in circumstances where a sanctioned person brings funds / assets into the UK without the relevant licenses. The funds / assets would still be owned by the sanctioned person but would be frozen until their listing was revoked.
 
As with many other aspects of the UK’s departure from the EU, it is difficult to predict with certainty the effect that Brexit will have on the UK’s sanctions regime. However, the Consultation Paper suggests that, at least initially, the UK Government will seek to maintain the status quo as regards its powers to administer and implement sanctions.
 
Responses to the Consultation Paper are now open, with a request for comments to be provided by 23 June 2017. Should you wish to discuss the Consultation Paper, please contact any member of the Sanctions team.

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

COMM_a3
14.

J. Dickeson: “Restricted Party Screening And Restricted End Uses”

 
* Author: Jim Dickeson is an import export geek and trade compliance guru who gets his kicks helping exporters, importers, and freight forwarders with their compliance headaches. You can find him at www.dickeson.net or www.linkedin.com/in/jimdickeson.
 
Are you starting from zero to learn export controls?  Here is one video on EAR basics: Restricted Party Screening and Restricted End Uses.
 
This completes the series on the four basic questions to Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security export license determination.
 

[Editor’s Note: the two previous videos, on the
Commerce Country Chart and
ECCN’s were included in the Daily Bugle of Thursday, 19 January 2017, item #17.]  

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

COMM_a415.

Weise Wednesday: “Have There Been Any New Developments in the Trump Administration’s Trade Agenda Since Your Last Blogpost?”

 
Welcome to Weise Wednesday! Today we will share a brief Q&A with the former U.S. Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise. Please send questions to AskGeorge@IntegrationPoint.com.
 
  Q
: Have there been any new developments in the Trump administration’s trade agenda since your last blogpost?
 
  A
: Yes, there have been two new developments since my last post-one related to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the second relating to the status of the President’s nominee for the Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Robert Lighthizer. In my last post, I described how critical candidate Trump had been about NAFTA and his expressed intention to either terminate it or renegotiate it.  This issue bubbled to the surface shortly after my last post. On April 26, word starting circulating through the President’s advisors that he planned to announce at a Pennsylvania rally on April 29 – his 100th day in office – that he would be officially notifying Canada and Mexico of his intention to terminate U.S. participation in NAFTA.
 
The Response to NAFTA’s potential termination
 
The news set off widespread panic in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.  Business and agricultural leaders and legislators in the U.S. weighed in with the White House about how damaging such a move would be to U.S. economic interests.  The President of Mexico and Prime Minister of Canada both called President Trump to warn against the consequences of such an action and urged the President to opt for renegotiation of the terms of NAFTA rather than its termination.  Many of the President’s closest advisors, including Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, urged him not to terminate NAFTA.
 
The Decision to Renegotiate NAFTA
 
Around 10:30 p.m. that evening, the White House issued a statement saying the President would not pull out of the agreement for now.  The next morning, April 27, President Trump posted on Twitter that he had agreed to pleas from the leaders of Canada and Mexico not to withdraw from NAFTA immediately, but to renegotiate instead.  He reiterated, however, that he would still terminate the agreement in the future “if we don’t reach a fair deal for all.”
 
It is not clear at this point when the negotiations will begin and what issues will be addressed.  But the President has made it clear that he wants an agreement that better serves U.S. interests.
 
The USTR as a Key Player
 
One of the key players for the U.S. when these negotiations commence will be the President’s USTR, Robert Lighthizer.  His nomination for the position had been pending for some time before the Senate Finance Committee, largely because he had done some lobbying many years ago for China and Brazil, and there are restrictions on a USTR representing foreign interests.  Then on April 25, the Senate Finance Committee unanimously approved his nomination as USTR, and his nomination is expected to be approved by the full Senate very soon.  He will clearly have his hands full addressing NAFTA renegotiation and many other Trump trade initiatives.

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

MSEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

MS_a116. ECS Presents “Benchmarking Your ITAR/EAR Compliance Program” featuring Gerry Horner, Commerce/BIS; Byron Angvall, The Boeing Company and Christine Lee, UTC in Annapolis MD, 24-25 May
(Source: Suzanne Palmer,
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
)
 
* What: Benchmarking Your ITAR/EAR Compliance Program with the Experts, Annapolis, MD
* When: May 24-25, 2017
* Where: Chart House Restaurant
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel: Gerry Horner, Commerce/BIS; Byron Angvall, Boeing; Christine Lee, UTC; Suzanne Palmer & Lisa Bencivenga
* Register
Here
or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

* Karl Barth (10 May 1886 – 10 Dec 1968, was a Swiss Reformed theologian who is often regarded as the greatest Protestant theologian of the twentieth century. His influence expanded well beyond the academic realm to mainstream culture, leading him to be featured on the cover of Time on April 20, 1962.)
– “Joy is the simplest form of gratitude.”
 
Ariel Durant (10 May 1898 – 25 October 1981) was a Ukrainian-born American researcher and writer and the coauthor of The Story of Civilization with her husband Will Durant.)
  – “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”

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

EN_a318
. 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: 27 Jan 2017: 82 FR 8589-8590: Delay of Effective Date for Importations of Certain Vehicles and Engines Subject to Federal Antipollution Emission Standards; and 82 FR 8590: Delay of Effective Date for Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions.

* 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: 18 Apr 2017: 82 FR 18217-18220: Revision to an Entry on the Entity List)

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment:
10 Feb 2017: 82 FR 10434-10440: Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties. 
 
*
FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR)
: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment: 19 Apr 2017: 82 FR 18383-18393: Foreign Trade Regulations: Clarification on Filing Requirements 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
here.
  – The latest edition (19 Apr 2017) 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 Jan 2017: 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: 7 Mar 2017: Harmonized System Update 1702, containing 1,754 ABI records and 360 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: 11 Jan 2017: 82 FR 3168-3170: 2017 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 8 Mar 2017) of the ITAR is Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, 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.

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

Review last week’s top Ex/Im stories in “Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories” published
here

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

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