;

17-0512 Friday “Daily Bugle”

17-0512 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 12 May 2017

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

  1. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on Form F 6330.1, Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy 
  2. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on F 3210.1, Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges
  3. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on Forms 5630.5R, 5630.5RC, and 5630.7, NFA Special Occupational Taxes 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP: FDA Import Systems Maintenance Scheduled on 13 May
  4. DHS/CBP Posts Notice Concerning Processing of DTCC Licenses for Carnet Importations
  5. DHS/CBP Announces ACE PRODUCTION Outage, 13-14 May
  6. State/DDTC Posts Address Change for NorthStar Aviation USA LLC
  7. EU Continuous Restrictive Measures Concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina Until 31 Mar 2018
  8. EU Adopts Decision in Support of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and Amends Regulation Concerning the Classification of Certain Goods in the Combined Nomenclature
  1. Bloomberg: “Lighthizer Approval as Trade Rep Paves Way for Nafta Talks”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Customs Investigations, Trade Deficits, EPA Regulations, Export Controls”
  1. D.M. Edelman: “How Should Businesses Prepare for the Second 100 Days of the Trump Administration?”
  2. M. Schaake: “Amendments Dual-Use Regulation”
  3. M. Volkov: “The Compliance Profession and the Demand for ‘Results'”
  4. J.S. Kuvalich: “Could Targeting China’s Huawei Be Trump Administration’s First Cuba Action?”
  5. O. Torres: “From A to ZTE: A Review of Lessons Learned from the ZTE Case”
  6. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  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
  2. Friday List of Approaching Events
  1. Jarred A. Fishman Moves to Booz Allen Hamilton
  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 (26 Apr 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. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on Form F 6330.1, Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 22157-22158: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy, ATF F 6330.1
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
* ACTION: 30-day notice. …
* DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 12, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Hopkins, Program Manager, ATF National Laboratory Center, either by mail at 6000 Ammendale Road, Beltsville, MD 20705-1250, by email at Sheila.Hopkins@atf.gov. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for National
Firearms Examiner Academy
  – Form number: ATF F 6330.1.
  – Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. …
  – Primary: State, Local or Tribal Government.
  – Other: Federal Government.
  – Abstract: The Information requested on this form is necessary to process requests from prospective students to attend the ATF National Firearms Examiner Academy, and to acquire firearms and toolmark examiner training. The information collection is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant. …
  – If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
 
  Dated: May 9, 2017.
Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.

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

EXIM_a2

2. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on F 3210.1, Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 22156-22157: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges, ATF F 3210.1
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
* ACTION: 30-day notice. …
* DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 12, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Explosives Relief of Disabilities Program, National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) either by mail at 3750 Corporal Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, by email at FROD@atf.gov, or by telephone at 256-261-7640. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Restoration
of Firearms Privileges
  – Form number (If applicable): ATF F 3210.1
  – Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. …
  – Abstract: The information requested is collected to fulfill the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. Under Federal law, individuals prohibited from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms are permitted to apply for restoration of their firearms privileges. The information to be supplied must identify the specifics of the applicant’s appeal for restoration of privileges. The information is investigated, processed, examined, and stored initially at ATF Headquarters. …
  – If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
 
  Dated: May 9, 2017.
Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.

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

EXIM_a3

3. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on Forms 5630.5R, 5630.5RC, and 5630.7, NFA Special Occupational Taxes

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 22158: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Firearms Act (NFA)–Special Occupational Taxes (SOT), (ATF Form 5630.5R, ATF Form 5630.5RC, and ATF Form 5630.7)
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
* ACTION: 30-Day notice. …
* DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 12, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Schaible, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, National Firearms Act Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) either by mail at 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226, by email at nfaombcomments@atf.gov, or by telephone at 202 648-7165. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – The Title of the Form/Collection: National Firearms Act (NFA)–Special Occupational Taxes (SOT).
  – Form number: ATF Form 5630.5R, ATF Form 5630.5RC, and ATF Form 5630.7.
  – Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. …
  – Abstract: ATF F 5630.7, NFA Special Tax Registration and Return National Firearms Act is completed and returned by businesses that are subject to Special Occupational Taxes under the National Firearms Act for either initial tax payment or business information changes. This form serves as both a return and a business registration. ATF F 5630.5R, NFA Special Tax Renewal Registration and Return and ATF F 5630.5RC, NFA Special Tax Location Registration Listing are preprinted forms sent to taxpayers for Special Occupation Taxes under the National Firearms Act. Taxpayers validate/correct the information and send the forms back with payment for the applicable tax year. …
  – If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
 
  Dated: May 9, 2017.
Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.

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

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.]  

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

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

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000272, 12 May 2017.)
 
Automated Broker Interface
 
FDA’s Import Systems will be down for maintenance on Saturday, May 13, 2017 starting at approximately 3:00 AM through approximately 7:00 AM EST. This outage includes FDA’s ACE Interface, OASIS and Entry Review. ITACS may be intermittently impacted during this period.
 
As a result, FDA’s Division of Food Defense Targeting will be operating under the prior notice scenario 2 contingency. This scheduled maintenance will prevent submitters who filed via ABI from receiving prior notice confirmation and will prevent CBP from auto-checking the prior notice confirmation for ABI filers. If prior notice has not already been submitted, ABI filers may decide to wait-out the system downtimes if they determine that the timeliness of prior notice will not be adversely affected. Filers who choose this option should understand that they remain responsible under section 801(m) of the act and under the prior notice final rule for filing timely prior notice. ABI transmissions received by FDA during the downtime will be queued and processed once the maintenance is completed. Prior notice (PN) confirmation numbers will not be transmitted back to ABI filers during the downtime.
 
Alternatively, filers may submit prior notice via PNSI (website). Prior notice confirmation numbers must accompany articles of food (21 CFR 1.279(g)). If prior notice is submitted through PNSI, FDA and CBP recommend that the PNSI confirmation page, including the prior notice confirmation number and time stamp, be presented to CBP officers for cargo release. If the PNSI confirmation page is not presented, this may delay cargo release while the CBP officer contacts FDA for verification of the prior notice confirmation number(s) and time of submission.
 
If prior notice has already been submitted via ACS/ACE prior to the interface outage and confirmation has already been received, the submitter may proceed with prior notice using the standard process. If prior notice has already been submitted via ACS/ACE and confirmation has not been received prior to the interface outage, FDA and CBP recommend that, rather than resubmitting via PNSI, submitters should provide to CBP officers an endorsed (signed) copy of the ABI transmission or some other evidence adequate to show that prior notice has been submitted via ACS/ACE. Questions regarding prior notice during this downtime should be presented to the FDA’s Division of Food Defense Targeting at (866) 521-2297.
 
During this maintenance period FDA will not receive entry data from CBP or process any outbound messaging. Entries submitted during this downtime will be processed and messaging sent after the maintenance period has completed.
 
Please contact FDA ACE Support from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern, seven days a week at ACE_Support@fda.hhs.gov or 877-345-1101 (domestic toll-free) or 571-620-7320 (local/international) for ACE questions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000274, 12 May 2017.)
 
Carnets are processed using the paper carnet and are not yet automated. As a result, the ability to collect information for Partner Government Agencies, including licenses, is limited to paper as well. When processing carnets, CBP will allow the use of paper copies of the export licensing documents in lieu of electronic information. As a matter of policy, CBP will not reject carnets for the purpose of collecting license information electronically. Export procedures will still require AES filing with appropriate license documentation.

  – At the time of arrival in the U.S. the paper carnets will be presented to CBP for review and notation as appropriate.

  – If the merchandise being temporarily imported requires a DSP-61, Temporary Import License, and/or DSP-73 License for Temporary Export, the license holder is to present a copy of the license along with the carnet. 

  – CBP personnel will review the carnet and license to determine correctness and perform any necessary examinations or reviews as per current policy.

  – CBP personnel will appropriately annotate the correct importation counterfoil of the carnet and follow all current processing instructions for carnets.

  – CBP personnel will annotate the license in the Automated Export System (AES) in the comments section. The comments should include the date, the processing port, carnet identifying number, and the licensed quantity, description and value being imported.  

  – Exporters will have to file the Electronic Export Information in AES against the appropriate license and present the carnet for outbound processing. 

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

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000275, 12 May 2017.)
 
There will be an ACE PRODUCTION Outage Saturday evening, May 13, 2017 from 2200 ET to 0400 ET Sunday, May 14, 2017 for ACE maintenance.

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

(Source:
State/DDTC) [Excerpts.]
 
Effective June 1, 2017, NorthStar Aviation USA LLC, 1750 Tyson Boulevard, Suite 1500, McLean, Virginia 22102 will change as follows: NorthStar Aviation USA LLC, 1775 Tysons Blvd., Suite #4203, Tysons, VA 22102. Due to the volume of authorizations requiring amendments to reflect this change, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls is exercising the authority under 22 CFR 126.3 to waive the requirement for amendments to change currently approved license authorizations. The amendment waiver does not apply to approved or pending agreements. …
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
On 29 March 2017, the Council adopted Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/607. The Council Decision extends the existing restrictive measures until 31 March 2018. The measures in question are asset freezes and travel bans against persons and entities whose activities undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, constitutional order and international personality of Bosnia and Herzegovina, seriously threaten the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina or undermine the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement for Peace and the Annexes thereto. 
 
The Candidate Countries Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, and the EFTA countries Iceland and Liechtenstein, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and Georgia align themselves with this Council Decision. 
 
They will ensure that their national policies conform to this Council Decision. 
 
The European Union takes note of this commitment and welcomes it.  
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a8
11. EU Adopts Decision in Support of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and Amends Regulation Concerning the Classification of Certain Goods in the Combined Nomenclature

 
Regulations:
  – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/803 of 8 May 2017 amending Regulation (EEC) No 316/91 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.
 
Decisions:
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/809 of 11 May 2017 in support of the implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

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

NWSNEWS

 
The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s pick as top trade negotiator, clearing the way for the administration to reset relations starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
 
In a 82-14 vote, the Senate approved Robert Lighthizer as U.S. Trade Representative on Thursday. Trump tapped Lighthizer for the position in January, but the lawyer’s confirmation was delayed by questions from lawmakers over work he did decades ago on behalf of foreign governments, for which he had to get a legal waiver.
 
One of Lighthizer’s first orders of business will be to consult Congress on the administration’s plans to renegotiate Nafta, which Trump called a “disaster” during the election campaign. His confirmation clears a hurdle before the U.S. can start 90 days of consultations preceding Nafta talks. Trump has threatened to withdraw from the agreement with Mexico and Canada if he doesn’t thinks discussions are going his way.
 
Lighthizer overcame a last-minute push by two Republican senators, John McCain and Ben Sasse, to block his confirmation. The pair voted against his appointment, along with fellow Republican Cory Gardner, after saying they had concerns about the administration’s protectionist rhetoric and its plans to renegotiate Nafta.
 
China Problem
 
Lighthizer, 69, worked for decades as a trade lawyer, representing clients including U.S. Steel Corp. He served as a deputy USTR under Ronald Reagan, earning a reputation as a hard-nosed negotiator, and he also has political experience from his time as a senior aide to former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Dole.
 
During his confirmation hearing, Lighthizer told lawmakers that China presents one of America’s leading trade problems, adding that the World Trade Organization isn’t capable of handling cases relating to China’s industrial policy.
 
Trump has made tackling trade deficits and bringing back U.S. jobs from overseas a key focus of his economic agenda. As one of his first acts in the presidency, Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which Congress hadn’t yet approved, and he’s since vowed to terminate or fix a five-year-old trade agreement with South Korea.
 
His administration has also promised to more strictly enforce existing trade rules, and Lighthizer during his confirmation hearing vowed to bring “as many actions as are justified” to the WTO and bilateral dispute panels.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
  – 15 May: deadline for comments to EPA on regulations to be repealed, replaced, or modified
  – 18 May: DOC/USTR hearing on significant U.S. trade deficits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMCOMMENTARY

 
* Author: Doreen M. Edelman, Esq., Baker Donelson LLP, 202-508-3460, dedelman@bakerdonelson.com.
 
Baker Donelson’s Trade and Compliance attorneys are pleased to introduce a quarterly series of client alerts that address how trade and compliance matters in the new Administration could affect your business, as well as how you can prepare your business with thoughtful and timely planning. Our series will highlight key developments that will affect outbound and inbound trade, including potential higher tariffs, stepped up enforcement of dumping and subsidies law, and significant changes to sanctions and export control laws.
 
Our first alert, “
Summary of Possible Changes in the U.S. Trade Policy During President Trump’s First 100 Days,” provided a brief summary of the Trump Administration’s expected first 100 days of trade. Having just reached the milestone of 100 days into the Administration, the question is not what did President Trump promise and what did he do; the question is how should businesses prepare for the future?
 
WHAT DO WE KNOW AFTER THE FIRST 100 DAYS?
 
Regulatory Approach
 
In its first 100 days, the Trump Administration has implemented some regulatory changes to continue its predecessors’ decade-long efforts to streamline regulatory requirements for exporters and importers. One such project will modernize and streamline procedures and required government paperwork for exporters and importers while eliminating redundant requirements. This process began in 2006 under George W. Bush, and in 2014, President Obama signed an Executive Order creating the new system called the Automated Commercial Environment or ACE. Continuing this trend under President Trump, the U.S. Census Bureau just issued a Final Rule amending the regulations and implementing a system of tracking numbers to help businesses track shipments that undergo scheduling or port changes more efficiently. While these changes are in line with President Trump’s pledge to slash overly-burdensome regulations for businesses, they do not represent a break from the policies of his predecessors. Rather, these measures are a continuation of efforts that stretch back three presidential terms. The President has chosen to stay the course on this practical initiative, as well as on more controversial issues like relations with Cuba, Iran and China (so far), and keeping this continuity in our global markets is good for business.
 
A New Policy Shop
 
This week President Trump created a new office, the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy or “OTMP.” The new office will synchronize the Administration’s trade enforcement and promotion actions, enforce “Buy American, Hire American” policies throughout the government, liaise on behalf of the White House with the Commerce Department and advise the President on “policies to increase economic growth, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the United States manufacturing and defense industrial bases.” This new office will essentially replace Trump’s previously established National Trade Council.
 
Trade Agreements
 
While the Trump Administration did remove the United States from the 12 nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the United States Trade Representatives negotiated for the last ten years, it has not taken any measurable steps on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In order to actually make changes to the NAFTA, the Administration must formally notify Congress 90 days before it begins negotiating. In addition, it must provide specific plans regarding proposed changes. President Trump has indicated that he wants to address trade issues on a bilateral or trilateral basis. It can be assumed that he believes he can get the better deal for American companies with such negotiations. However, here are a few things that complicate the issue. When the USTR negotiated the TPP, it was able to leverage the deal. If Country A wanted something in return for agreeing to a particular provision, there were 11 other countries that could make it happen. In other words, the U.S. was able to win concessions by giving Country A something from Country B, while itself giving up nothing. This type of negotiation is not possible in bilateral or trilateral negotiations. Thus, whether the Administration will be able to tackle the same issues without third country leverage and actually implement alternative agreements remains to be seen.
 
Meanwhile, the Commerce Department recently determined that new countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber are warranted because of Canadian government subsidies. The new duties, although fitting with the Administration’s promise to enforce our trade laws, were in the queue long before President Trump took office. The decision sounds good for the U.S., as we are implementing U.S. trade laws and paying back U.S. injured parties will actually be paid from the duties our government collects from the Canadians. However, it isn’t the Canadians who actually will be paying those duties. The softwood lumber duty costs will be passed on to the U.S. importers of the Canadian lumber and the downstream customers – the homebuilders and the home buyers. Home prices will increase. Yet, the Canadian government has indicated that it won’t even be hurt by the duties. Therefore, the duties may hurt U.S. consumers more than the foreign supplier. The point is that, notably, the situation illustrates there are winners and losers on both sides of the border for each trade issue. Perhaps it could be better to add these topics into the NAFTA for market predictability for businesses going forward.
 
So how can companies doing business in the United States move forward without a clear vision of U.S. trade policy over the next few years? Stay the course, but formulate alternatives you can use, if needed. Here are some questions you can ask to assist in creating alternative plans:
 
  – Consider where your products and component parts come from. What if duties increase for those items? Can you buy them in the U.S.? Do you have other sources? How quickly can you get what you need and how much inventory do you keep?
  – Are you foreign-owned? Consider your product’s country of origin. Is it substantially transformed in the U.S.? Where is the technology and engineering coming from? Could you manufacture in the U.S. and take advantage of Trump’s potential tax plan if it comes to fruition?
  – Are you going to need foreign workers? How are you going to get them if the immigration rules change?
  – Do you export? Ensure you are screening your customers and complying with the Treasury Department’s sanctions requirements and prohibitions. The Administration promises more enforcement regarding U.S. and foreign parties that violate U.S. export and Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanction requirements. Understand U.S. jurisdiction over your products and services, including the potential jurisdiction over the exports of any foreign subsidiaries.
 
The new Administration also promises an uptick in other types of trade enforcement, and it might surprise some to find out that the U.S. has jurisdiction over U.S. content products and technology with U.S. content all over the world. The Commerce Department controls and licenses the shipments of U.S. commercial products globally, and the State Department governs not only U.S. military goods and technology, but also the actions of U.S. entities providing defense services and facilitating the manufacture, sale and export of foreign defense products worldwide. For all U.S. persons there are prohibitions on certain end-users and end-uses globally, and there are even controls on managing certain foreign subsidiary business. The point is that there are old rules and new rules and the regulators are watching more closely. So, be sure to know the rules that apply to you.
 
[Editor’s Note: a slightly different version of this commentary was published in Global Trade Magazine on 8 May 2017, and is available
here.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a215
. M. Schaake: “Amendments Dual-Use Regulation”

 
* Author: Marietje Schaake, Member of the European Parliament (D66/Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), marietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu.
 
Today (Thursday, 11 May 2017) I submitted my amendments to the Commission proposal to update the export control system on dual-use items. For more than six years, I have been pushing for a fundamental reform of this system, to take account of the human rights and security risks of the proliferation of cyber-surveillance technologies. Too often, we have seen such technologies exported from the European Union to be used by repressive regimes to spy on and hack their own citizens, journalists or human rights defenders. Recently we also learned that these technologies can also be used to create cyber weapons to attack the digital infrastructure of EU Member States.
 
In my amendments to the Commission’s proposal, I have focused on a number of issues:
 
Differentiation Between Dual-Use Items and Cyber-Surveillance Technologies
 
The Commission proposed to treat cyber-surveillance technologies as a category of dual-use items. The problem with this approach is that there is a distinction between the more ‘classic’ dual-use items, such as machine tools, and cyber-surveillance technologies in that their potential uses are very different and their potential impact on human rights as well. In order to create more legal certainty and to provide more clarity for both companies and export control authorities, it is easier to speak about dual-use items and cyber surveillance technologies. In this way, we acknowledge the difference and can identify specific criteria for human rights that are relevant for cyber-surveillance technologies, but not necessarily for other items. This new approach is comparable to what was done in the regulation to control the export of items that could be used for torture or the death penalty. Items like spiked clubs and electric chairs were taken up in the same regulation as medical products that could be used for the death penalty. Different types of product can be taken up in the same regulation, but we need to make sure it is clear they may require different treatments.
 
Remove Encryption From the Control Lists
 
In the 21st century it does not make sense anymore to control the export of encryption products. Encryption is an essential element of our digital economies, and it is a necessary tool to protect our communications. Instead of introducing a new General Export Authorisation, which is a welcome step to facilitate trade and ensure a level playing field with other countries, I deleted these products altogether from the control-list. This would immensely reduce red tape for European tech companies, and it would facilitate the implementation of the General Data Protection regulation. If the GDPR encourages companies outside the EU to encrypt personal data, it would make no sense to create hurdles for the export of encryption technologies.
 
Avoid Unintended Consequences For Security Researchers
 
The goal of introducing controls on new cyber-surveillance tools should never have an impact on the work of security researchers. After I asked for suggestions on how to improve the current regime, and after organizing and hosting a hearing in the Parliament on the same topic, I changed key-definitions on what cyber-surveillance technologies are for the purposes of this regulation. I also changed the definition of intrusion software in the Annex, and I created a new exception for network and security research for the purposes of authorised testing or the protection of information security systems in the Annex.
 
Targeting and Clarifying the ‘Catch-All’ Control
 
In specific cases, authorities need to be able to stop the export of items that are not on the control lists. This is already the case in the current regulation, and in multiple other export control regimes. The update from the Commission introduces the possibility to also stop an export if there is a chance the products would be used to commit serious human rights violations. This is a good proposal, but it needs to be clear what the criteria are for controlling non-listed items, to ensure legal certainty for exporters. For arms exports, European authorities already control on the basis of human rights criteria since 2008. In this context, there is already guidance on how serious human rights violations should be qualified. It should be clear which international institutions are qualified to assess whether serious human rights violations have occurred.
 
Specific Human Rights Checks For Cyber-Surveillance Technologies
 
Export control authorities currently control dual-use items on the basis of human rights criteria. However, with the addition of cyber-surveillance technologies to the controlled items, it makes sense to add a specific control criterion for these kinds of technologies, since their use can result in a direct interference with a number of specific human rights, including the right to privacy, the right to data protection, freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly and association. . Therefore, a ninth control criterion referring to cyber-surveillance technologies, the specific human rights they may violate and the security risk they pose will provide more clarity for authorities and companies.
 
Clear Parameters for EU Unilateral Controls
 
The Commission has proposed that the EU should control certain cyber-surveillance items, which are currently not on the list which is agreed with other countries at the so-called Wassenaar Arrangement. The introduction of a unilateral list is a good idea. These are dangerous technologies and the EU must set a standard, also if others do not take the same steps. Given the sensitivity and technological capabilities of some of these products, it is in our own interest to make sure they do not end up in the wrong hands. However, it should be clear that the unilateral list should be limited to the most sensitive products, in order to remain as closely aligned as possible to the internationally agreed list. Therefore it should not go beyond cyber-surveillance technologies and must not contain any duplications with the other control lists, since this would create confusion and uncertainty over which product is controlled where.
 
Clear Information on End-Users and End-Use
 
When applying for licenses, companies are required to state who the end-user and what the end-use of a product will be. It is essential that this information is as detailed as possible. In the past, we have seen sensitive products being exported to ‘the ministry of internal affairs’, where it was not clear which sub-entity would actually be the end-user. In order to make a proper assessment, authorities need to know whether a product is going to be used by the police, by an intelligence service, or by an entity which does not have a legal basis in a country’s domestic law for example. Given the sensitivity of certain cyber-surveillance technologies, these products should always have an end-use statement, whereby the client explains how the product will be used.
 
Sharing All Information
 
The actual control of exports is done by national export control authorities. To create a level-playing field and a coherent interpretation of the rules that will be laid down by this regulation, it is crucial that authorities and the Commission also share all the available information on what kind of products and licences have been granted or denied and whether specific operators have violated the rules. This can also ensure that if licences are denied in one member state, the product will not be exported through another member state.
 
Equal and Coherent Penalties
 
A level playing field also requires that Member States have the same kind of penalty systems. It cannot be the case that a company receives a small fine in one Member State if it violates the rules, while there might be hefty prison sentences in another. While it is clear that criminal law is a Member State competence, I have proposed that the Commission assesses the penalty systems so that there is an overview and the Member States can work together towards bringing their systems into line.
 
Transparency and Scrutiny
 
Some Member States already publish a lot of information on exports which fall under this regulation, while other Member States publish nothing. In the interest of transparency and public scrutiny, Member States should publish as much information as possible, without harming companies legitimate business interests and without revealing trade secrets. When it comes to arms exports, it is already common practice for Member States (and other countries) to publish detailed reports of the types and amount of weapons exported. It should not be difficult to do the same for products which in essence are less sensitive.
 
———-
My amendments can be found here.
 
They should be read in conjunction with the Commission’s proposal which can be found here. You can find the annexes to the Commission’s proposal here.
 
I look forward to continuing this discussion on this crucial topic. In the European Parliament, we will now enter into discussions with other groups, in order to vote on our position first in July in the Trade Committee and then in September in the Plenary. After that, we will enter into negotiations with the Council and Commission to reach a final agreement.

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

COMM_a316. M. Volkov: “The Compliance Profession and the Demand for “Results””

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
Compliance professionals are riding high. They are the darlings of the corporate governance world, commanding higher salaries, C-Suite positions with access to senior leadership and the board, and an empowered position within major, multinational companies. But there are storm clouds on the horizon. In fact, these storm clouds are inevitable – it is just a matter of when and where they will arrive.
 
What do I mean?
 
Our country’s history is replete with cycles of scandal and financial collapse. It is inevitable that we will face a challenging economy at some point, that blame will be passed around for government failures to prosecute and regulate the industry in which offending conduct contributed to an economic controversy. This should sound familiar to everyone.
 
In fact, we experienced two significant periods like this in the first decade ion the 21st century – the accounting scandals result in WorldCom, Enron and other financial crimes leading to the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley; and the financial collapse in 2008 resulting in the enactment of Dodd-Frank reforms.
 
When the next financial scandal or economic collapse occurs, I have no idea how or where it will happen. One significant change, however, will be present – sitting in the C-Suite and at senior management meetings will be the company’ Chief Compliance Officer.
 
Assuming that the company has been implicated in a new set of financial scandals, the CEO (and the board), along with other senior leaders will look at the CCO and ask, “What the heck happened? I thought we had a robust, effective ethics and compliance program.”
 
The CCO will start to stammer like Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners – “Ahumdah, Humdah, Humdah.”
 
My point here is straightforward – CCOs have to define “success” for a compliance program, and make sure that everyone at the board, the CEO and senior management understands the definition. An effective compliance program does not mean, by definition, the absence of any violation of law or corporate code of conduct.
 
To be sure, a company with an effective ethics and compliance program is unlikely to suffer a systemic breakdown in corporate operations resulting in a massive corporate scandal. For example, if Volkswagen had an effective ethics and compliance program, it is hard to envision how the emissions testing scandal that involved so many layers of corporate actors, including senior executives, could have occurred.
 
A company with an “effective” ethics and compliance program can still suffer significant legal and reputational harms, although the likelihood and extent of such harms are far below that of companies with deficient ethics and compliance programs.
 
Nonetheless, CCOs have to counter the expectation or perception of perfection when it comes to compliance. A realistic understanding of ethics and compliance is essential for a CCO to operate in an environment in which compliance can maximize benefits to a company. If held to a standard of perfection, a CCO is doomed to fail. Indeed, a CCO who does not address and prevent a standard of perfection has to take on some of the blame him or herself, because the CCO bears the responsibility for educating the board, the CEO and senior management on proper supervision of a compliance program.
 
Many CCOs have fulfilled their obligations in this area to prevent “the look” or “the question” from occurring in the aftermath of a corporate scandal. CCOs need to continue the effort as a preventative measure.

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

COMM_a4
17. J.S. Kuvalich: “Could Targeting China’s Huawei Be Trump Administration’s First Cuba Action?”

 
* Author: John S. Kavulich, President U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Inc. (New York City), Council@Cubatrade.org.
 
Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China-based Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (2016 revenues exceeded US$75 billion) is a global networking and telecommunications equipment and services company comprised of three operating groups: Carrier, Enterprise, and Consumer. The company, which has its United States headquarters in Plano, Texas, is the world’s second-to-third-largest manufacturer of cellular telephone equipment and has substantial revenue streams from exports of products and services to the United States.
 
In 2017, the company received a subpoena from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury in Washington, DC. In 2016, the company received a subpoena from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce in Washington, DC. The subpoenas focused on technology transfer activities (and potential military/civilian dual-use issues) by the company in the Republic of Cuba and Iran, Sudan, and Syria during the last five (5) years.
 
The investigation of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. commenced during the Obama Administration and has continued during the Trump Administration. There have been no reported efforts by the Trump Administration to interrupt the investigation begun by career staff at the BIS and the OFAC.
 
The Trump Administration may use the potential impact of financial (which could exceed US$2 billion) and United States market-access (most significant) penalties against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. as a means to obtain assistance from the government of the People’s Republic of China on issues relating to North Korea and, perhaps, relating to the Republic of Cuba. The government of the People’s Republic of China may seek relief from any penalties upon Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. relating to the Republic of Cuba as a condition for supporting Trump Administration efforts relating to North Korea.
 
Members of the United States Congress and individuals within the Trump Administration (The White House, United States Department of the Treasury, United States Department of State, United States Department of Justice and United States Department of Defense) have an interest in requiring the government of the People’s Republic of China to lessen its support for the Republic of Cuba in return for any relief to Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
 
Any adverse decision impacting the relationship between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and its access to the Republic of Cuba marketplace will unlikely result in commensurate opportunities for United States-based companies. Other People’s Republic of China-based companies and those located in Japan and in South Korea would be the expected beneficiaries.
 
If there are restrictions imposed upon Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., the government of the Republic of Cuba would not be expected to disrupt roaming or service agreements with New York, New York-based Verizon; Dallas, Texas-based AT&T; Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint; Bellevue, Washington-based T-Mobile, and Newark, New Jersey-based IDT Corporation; or the server installation and operation agreement (donation) with Menlo Park, California-based Google.
 
 
From 20 January 2016 to 22 January 2016, The Honorable Daniel Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy led an official fourteen-member delegation to the Republic of Cuba which included The Honorable Thomas Wheeler, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and FCC staff, representatives from the OFAC, and according to Deputy Assistant Secretary Sepulveda, representatives of “academia, and the private sector.”
 
The names of the non-United States government participants have not been disclosed by the United States Department of State. The Washington, DC-based Information Technology Industry Council confirmed that its president, Mr. Dean Garfield, participated in the delegation “led by the U.S. Ambassador and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Communications and Information Policy Daniel Sepulveda.” Other private sector participants included representatives of California-based Cisco Systems, Pennsylvania-based Comcast, Sweden-based Ericsson (North American Headquarters in Plano, Texas).
 
From one private sector participant on 28 January 2016: “The trip was an official U.S. delegation visit by the State Department, and [redacted] was invited to join as part of the delegation. I can find a point of contact to pass along at the State Department who can answer your questions since they organized the trip.”
 
From Chairman Wheeler on 27 January 2016: “Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda from the State Department led our delegation which also included representatives from the Department of the Treasury as well as representatives of the technology community. The inclusion of the private sector in the talks advanced the dialog with real life examples of what was possible.”
 
On 1 February 2016, Republic of Cuba government-operated Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones de Cuba S.A. (ETEC S.A.) reported that it would install broadband services within the area of Old Havana using equipment sourced from Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China-based Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. (2015 revenues exceeded US$28 billion). On 6 November 2015, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd. Reported an agreement to market mobile devices, parts, accessories and to train repair personnel. The government of the People’s Republic of China has extended substantial financial credits to the government of the Republic of Cuba.
 
A challenge for United States-based communications/ telecommunications companies and the United States government is how to answer the following inquiry from the Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba:
 
If we purchase your equipment, how do we know the equipment will not be compromised before it arrives or have an ability to be compromised from abroad after its installation? Will you augment the specifications of equipment so we may monitor all voice, text, data and email traffic flowing through the equipment?

 

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

COMM_a5
18
. O. Torres: “From A to ZTE: A Review of Lessons Learned from the ZTE Case”

(Source: Torres Law PLLC)

* Authors: Olga Torres, Esq., Torres Law PLLC, info@torrestradelaw.com.
 
On March 7, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) together levied the largest ever export and sanctions related penalty against Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”). ZTE agreed to the combined $1.19 billion fine to settle a number of alleged violations of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran.
 
In particular, the agencies alleged a sophisticated, years-long effort by ZTE to evade U.S. sanctions in order to sell U.S.-origin telecom equipment into Iran. These alleged violations were taking place even as ZTE represented to the U.S. government and their own outside counsel-as suggested in the DOJ press release-that the company had ceased its Iran business. According to the information released by DOJ, OFAC, and BIS, ZTE engaged in a broad scheme of activities to conceal its Iran business from U.S. authorities, including, for example, removing ZTE logos from products destined for Iran and developing a system of codenames for customers and destinations in Iran.
 
For most companies-particularly a good corporate citizen with an appropriately risk-based compliance program-the ZTE case may not, on its face, seem to offer much more than interesting reading. However, while few companies may undertake the same willful and egregious tactics alleged in the DOJ, OFAC, and BIS releases, there are a number of lessons even a well-meaning organization can take from the ZTE case.
 
ZTE Tactic: Directing mitigation of “export compliance risks” (i.e., the risk of detection by relevant authorities) associated with the company’s Iran business from the most senior levels, including the CEO.
 
ZTE’s senior management appears to have had full knowledge of-and indeed directed and/or approved-the company’s efforts to evade U.S. sanctions and illegally export U.S.-origin items to Iran. As part of the settlement, BIS agreed to lift the denial order it had placed on ZTE, but concurrently imposed a denial order on ZTE’s CEO based on his involvement in the activities for which ZTE was fined.
 
Lesson Learned: Messaging from senior management should be unequivocal in directing employees to comply with applicable law.
 
Developing a culture of compliance starts at the top. It’s vital that senior management sets the appropriate tone by periodically affirming the company’s intent to comply with the laws applicable to its business, including export controls and economic sanctions.
 
Such a statement should establish compliance as a corporate policy and should alert employees to the consequences of neglecting their export compliance responsibilities-specifically, severe penalties for the company and potential discipline for the employee. More than this, though, senior management must understand the risks and vulnerabilities associated with the company’s export activities and commit to allocating the necessary resources to ensure compliance.
 
ZTE Tactic: Utilizing intermediaries to mask transactions.
 
ZTE is alleged to have established or utilized third party companies to serve as intermediaries between its U.S. business and its Iran business. The company would route transactions through these third parties in an attempt to mask the ultimate destination.
 
Lesson Learned: Ensure third parties in a transaction comply with applicable laws.
 
Especially when operating in high-risk jurisdictions, it’s critical for manufacturers and exporters to ensure that third parties in the distribution chain comply with applicable laws. In many cases, this can be accomplished by doing appropriate due diligence on transaction parties and by obtaining contractual assurances that all parties will comply with U.S. sanctions. If the manufacturer or exporter will again become involved later in the transaction (e.g., through relationships with dealers at the point of sale or through providing warranty or aftersales services to the end users), companies should consider taking additional steps to maintain visibility into the distribution chain and obtaining even more robust compliance language, including the ability to walk away from a transaction or void a contract, if necessary, to avoid a sanctions violation.
 
ZTE Tactic: Requiring employees to sign NDAs affirming they would conceal ZTE’s Iran business.
 
According to the DOJ, ZTE required certain of its employees to sign non-disclosure agreements in which the employees agreed not to disclose its Iran-related business outside the company.
 
Lesson Learned: Empower employees to report potential or suspected violations and establish a clear line of communication.
 
As a central component of any effective compliance program, companies should encourage employees to report any potential or suspected violations of law (including export controls or economic sanctions) or of company policies. Such explicit encouragement can be particularly useful in preventing violations before they occur and can also help companies detect and remedy violations or gaps in the compliance program. The compliance program should clearly outline procedures for reporting such potential or suspected violations and companies should, where possible, establish a mechanism for anonymous reporting, such as a hotline.
 
ZTE Tactic: Deleting data and records, as well as employee emails, relating to Iran.
 
According to the DOJ, ZTE formed a “contract data induction team” (“CDIT”) to monitor the company’s databases and remove any data related to the Iran sales. The company also went so far as to initiate a nightly auto-deletion of the emails of the 13 CDIT members.
 
Lesson Learned: Implement a strict recordkeeping policy that preserves all relevant types of records.
 
Recordkeeping is another key element of an effective compliance program. Such a policy should align, at the very least, with the relevant statute of limitations-five years for export or sanctions related transactions. The policy should specify the types of records required to be retained, including licenses, purchase orders, bills of lading, and other export documentation, and, if possible, should identify a central repository or person responsible for maintaining records. Additionally, the recordkeeping policy ought to identify procedures for implementing a hold on the destruction of any documents in the event of an unintentional violation.
 
The press releases and accompanying materials can be accessed here:

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

COMM_a6
19. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update; available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com
)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
 
If the source code of a software program is publicly available, then the machine readable code compiled from the source code is software that is publicly available and therefore not subject to the EAR.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
20
. 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

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

TE_a221
. Friday List of Approaching Events

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

* DATE: PLACE; “TITLE;” SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT (email and phone number)

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

* May 15-18: London UK; “United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar in London (for EU and other non-US Companies);” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* May 16: Webinar; “
Regulatory Updates: Town Hall Series
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau

* May 17-19: Minneapolis MN; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* May 17: Southampton UK; “
Intermediate Seminar
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* May 17: The Hague, Netherlands; ”
Exportcontrole en Strategische Goederen” (Event in Dutch); Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs

* May 17: Webinar; “
Best Practices for Automating RPS
;” Amber Road

* May 17: Webinar; ”
Preparing for a Customs Investigation;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* May 18: Southampton UK; “
Beginners Workshop
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* May 22-24: San Diego CA; ”
ITAR/EAR Boot Camp;” American Conference Institute

* May 22: Webinar; “
Regulatory Updates: Town Hall Series Q&A Teleconference
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau

* May 23: Chicago IL; ”
2017 Global Trade & Commercial Compliance Update;” Baker McKenzie; Eunkyung Kim Shin, +1 312 861 8211,
eunkyung.kim.shin@bakermckenzie.com 

* May 23-24: Detroit MI; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* May 23: Tampa FL; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* May 24-25: Annapolis MD; “
‘Benchmarking Your ITAR/EAR Compliance Programs’ featuring Gerry Horner, Commerce/BIS; Byron Angvall, The Boeing Company and Christine Lee, UTC
;” 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018 / 410-757-1919

* May 24-25: Scottsdale AZ; ”
2017 West Coast Trade Symposium;” Dept. of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection

* May 25: Detroit MI; ”
U.S. Munitions List to Commerce Control List;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Jun 1: Webinar; ”
Identifying Agents for Customs Purposes – Traps for the Unwary Importer;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* Jun 5-7: Boston MA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Jun 5-8: Wash DC; “
United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

# Jun 6: Webinar; “
Managing Supply Chain Risks
;” Volkov Law Group

* Jun 7: London UK; “
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 


* Jun 8-9: Seattle WA; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Jun 11-13: Dublin IRL; “ICPA Dublin Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 


* Jun 12-14: Arlington VA; ”
8th Advanced Forum on DCAA & DCMA Cost, Pricing, Compliance & Audits;” American Conference Institute

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

* Jun 12: Shanghai China; “
5th Advanced China Forum on Import Compliance
;” American Conference Institute

* Jun 13: Philadelphia PA; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Jun 13: Webinar; ”
Using Incoterms® Properly to Avoid Disputes;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* Jun 14: Frankfurt am Main, Germany; “BAFA / BIS Export Control and Compliance Update 2;” Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle  

* Jun 14: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “Intermediate Seminar;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation; denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jun 15: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “
Beginners Workshop
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Jun 15: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “
Making Better License Applications
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Jun 15: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

# Jun 20: The Hague; “
Trade Controls: Current Challenges and Critical Issues from a US and EU Perspective
;” Netherlands International Chamber of Commerce

* Jun 20: Webinar; ”
International Payment Options 101;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* Jun 21-22: Miami FL; ”
Miami Forum on Anti-Corruption;” American Conference Institute

* Jun 21: Brussels, Belgium; “Export Controls and Economic Sanctions: US & EU Update 2017;” International Chamber of Commerce Belgium

* Jul 10-12; Baltimore MD; “
2017 Summer Back to Basics Conference
;” Society for International Affairs

* July 11-12: Seattle WA; “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp;” spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com; 866-238-4018 / 410-757-1919

* Jul 17-19: Hilton Head Island SC; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Jul 26-27: Oklahoma OK; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Jul 26-27
: Seattle WA; “
2017 Export Controls Conference
;” Dept. of Commerce/U.S. Commercial Service, Dept. of Homeland Security/Homeland Security Investigations, Seattle University, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

* Aug 2-3: Los Angeles; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Aug 14-16: McLean VA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Sep 4-9: Galveston TX;
ICPA Conference at Sea;”

International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org

* Sep 6: Nashville TN; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Sep 12-13: Annapolis MD; “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp;” spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com; 866-238-4018 / 410-757-1919

* Sep 12-13: Louisville KY; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Sep 12-13: Milpitas CA; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Sep 12-13: Wash DC; “Interactive Export Controls Workshop;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Sep 14: Milpitas CA; “
Encryption Controls;”
Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Sep 18-21: Austin TX; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
; ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Sep 18-20: Las Vegas NV; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Sep 20-22: Houston TX; ”
Advanced Topics in Customs Compliance Conference;” Deleon Trade LLC

* Sep 27-28: Rome, Italy; “
Defence Exports 2017
;” SMi

* Oct 2-5: Columbus OH; “University Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Oct 12: Boston MA; ”
AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census
Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Oct 22-24: Grapevine TX; “
Annual ICPA Fall Conference
;” International Compliance Professional Association;
Wizard@icpainc.org 

* Oct 23-24: Arlington VA; “
2017 Fall Advanced Conference
;” Society for International Affairs

* Oct 30-Nov 2: Phoenix AZ; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Nov 5-7: Singapore; ”
ICPA Singapore Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 6-8: Chicago IL; “Basics of Government Contracting;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Nov 7: Norfolk, VA; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Nov 9-10: Shanghai, China; ”
ICPA China Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 13-16: Wash DC; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Dec 5: San Juan PR; “
AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census
Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 6: Wood Ridge NJ; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 7: Laredo, TX; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 11-13: Sterling VA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Mar 11-14: San Diego CA; ”
ICPA Annual Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org  

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

(Source: Editor)
 

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a123
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

* 
Yogi Berra
 (
Lawrence Peter
 
“Yogi” Berra, 12 May 1925 – 22 Sep 2015, was an American professional 
baseball catcher, manager, and coach who played 19 seasons in Major League Baseball. He was an 18-time All-Star, and won 10 World Series championships as a player-more than any other player in MLB history. He was known for his malapropisms as well as pithy and paradoxical statements, such as “It ain’t over ’til it’s over”, while speaking to reporters. He once simultaneously denied and confirmed his reputation by stating, “I really didn’t say everything I said.”)
  – “Congratulations! I knew that record would stand until it was broken.”
  – “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
 
* Florence Nightingale (
12 May 1820 – 13 Aug 1910, was an English social reformer and statistician, and the founder of modern 
nursing.)
  – “I attribute my success to this – I never gave or took any excuse.”
 


Friday funnies:



A fellow mentions to his friend that his therapist told him to finish everything he started. So he says, “So far I’ve finished three bags of chips and one chocolate cake, and I feel better already.”

  — David Hill, Burleson, TX

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

EN_a224. 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 [New effective date: 21 March 2017.]; and 82 FR 8590: Delay of Effective Date for Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions
[New effective date: 21 March 2017.]

* 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: 26 Apr 2017: Harmonized System Update 1703, containing 2,512 ABI records and 395 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 with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III.  The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, 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.  

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

EN_a325
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor)
 

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