;

17-0616 Friday “Daily Bugle”

17-0616 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 16 June 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. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Additional Protocol to the U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement Report Forms 
  2. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Import, End-User, and Delivery Verification Certificates 
  3. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Procedures for Acceptance or Rejection of a Rated Order 
  4. Treasury/OFAC Removes Burmese Sanctions Regulations 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage on 17-18 June
  4. DHS/CBP Announces FDA Stakeholder Conference Call on 29 June
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  6. Treasury/OFAC Publishes New Cuba-Related FAQs
  7. EU INTA Announces Next Meeting on 19-20 June
  8. WCO Publishes Classification Decisions from Latest Session of the Harmonized System Committee
  1. Defense News: “US Lawmakers Skeptical of Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon”
  2. Reuters: “Trump Orders Clampdown on Cuba Travel and Trade, Curbing Obama Détente”
  3. Sputnik News: “Danish Surveillance Helps Dictators Spy on Dissenters”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: NAFTA, Aluminum, Trade Preferences, Payment Options”
  5. ST&R Trade Report: “USTR Seeks Budget Increase to Fund Trade Expansion and Enforcement Efforts”
  1. A.D. Irwin, M.E. Callahan & C.J. Robertson: “Recent Cybersecurity Developments Impacting Federal Contractors”
  2. K. Chia, E. Lim & Yi Lin Seng: “New End-User Statement Format for Strategic Goods Permits in Singapore”
  3. T.R. McBride & C. Palmeri: “The Long Arm of U.S. Sanctions: Penalty Imposed Against Canadian Subsidiary of U.S. Subsidiary of Japanese Company”
  4. R.C. Burns: “Delaware Bill Proposes Mandatory OFAC Screening: What Could Go Wrong?”
  5. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  1. Friday List of Approaching Events
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (27 Jan 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (14 Jun 2017), FACR/OFAC (16 Jun 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. 
Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Additional Protocol to the U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement Report Forms

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]

 
82 FR 27686-27687: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Additional Protocol to the U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement Report Forms
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice. …
* DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
* ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at jjesup@doc.gov). 
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at mark.crace@bis.doc.gov
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  – Abstract: The Additional Protocol requires the United States to submit declaration forms to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a number of commercial nuclear and nuclear-related items, materials, and activities that may be used for peaceful nuclear purposes, but also would be necessary elements for a nuclear weapons program. These forms provides the IAEA with information about additional aspects of the U.S. commercial nuclear fuel cycle, including: Mining and milling of nuclear materials; buildings on sites of facilities selected by the IAEA from the U.S. Eligible Facilities List; nuclear-related equipment manufacturing, assembly, or construction; import and export of nuclear and nuclear-related items and materials; and research and development. The Protocol also expands IAEA access to locations where these activities occur in order to verify the form data. …
  – OMB Control Number: 0694-0135.
  – Form Number(s): None. …
 
Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

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

EXIM_a2
2.
Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Import, End-User, and Delivery Verification Certificates

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 27687-27688: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Import, End-User, and Delivery Verification Certificates
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice. …
* DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
* ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at PRAcomments@doc.gov).
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at mark.crace@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  – Abstract: This collection of information provides the certification of the overseas importer to the U.S. Government that specific commodities will be imported from the U.S. and will not be reexported, except in accordance with U.S. export regulations. …
  – OMB Control Number: 0694-0093.
  – Form Number(s): None. …
 
Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

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

EXIM_a3
3. 
Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Procedures for Acceptance or Rejection of a Rated Order

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 27687: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Acceptance or Rejection of a Rated Order
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice. …
* DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
* ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at PRAcomments@doc.gov).
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at mark.crace@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
  – Abstract This collection involves the exchange of rated order information between customers and suppliers. Recordkeeping is necessary for administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4501, et seq.) and the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. 3801, et seq.). Any person (supplier) who receives a priority rated order under DPAS regulation (15 CFR 700) must notify the customer of acceptance or rejection of that order within a specified period of time. Also, if shipment against a priority rated order will be delayed, the supplier must immediately notify the customer. …
  – OMB Control Number: 0694-0092.
  – Form Number(s): None. …
 
Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

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

EXIM_a4
4. 
Treasury/OFAC Removes Burmese Sanctions Regulations

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 27613-27614: Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations
 
* AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing from the Code of Federal Regulations the Burmese Sanctions Regulations as a result of the termination of the national emergency on which the regulations were based.
* DATES: Effective: June 16, 2017
.


* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202/622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, or the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202/622-2410.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … On October 7, 2016, the President issued Executive Order 13742, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Actions and Policies of the Government of Burma” (E.O. 13742). In E.O. 13742, the President found that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in E.O. 13047, with respect to the actions and policies of the Government of Burma, had been significantly altered by Burma’s substantial advances to promote democracy, including historic elections in November 2015 that resulted in the former opposition party, the National League for Democracy, winning a majority of seats in the national parliament and the formation of a democratically elected, civilian-led government; the release of many political prisoners; and greater enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Accordingly, the President terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13047, and revoked that order, E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, E.O. 13619, and E.O. 13651.
  As a result, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. …
 
PART 537–[REMOVED]
  – 1. Remove part 537.
 
  Dated: June 13, 2017.
John E. Smith, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a15
. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 
* Industry and Security Bureau; NOTICES; Hearings; Procedures for Attending or Viewing Remotely Public Hearing on National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum [Publication Date: 19 June 2017.] 

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

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

OGS_a3
7.

DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage on 17-18 June

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000350, 16 June 2017.)
 
There will be an ACE PRODUCTION Outage Saturday evening, 17 June 2017 from 2200 ET to 0400 ET Sunday, 18 June 2017 for infrastructure maintenance.

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

OGS_a4
8.

DHS/CBP Announces FDA Stakeholder Conference Call on 29 June

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000349, 15 June 2017.)
 
FDA STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE CALL INFORMATION

* Date/Time: Thursday, June 29, 2017, 1:00 – 2:00 pm EDT
 
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) will host a Stakeholder Conference to discuss updates to the FDA Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Final Rule and the most common reasons for FDA entry rejections and shipment delays. We will also provide an overview on the use of the Supplemental Guide, provide answers to frequently asked questions, and disseminate contact information for FDA personnel working in import operations.
 

  – Please open on the attachment available via the source link above for conference call number and web meeting link. 

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

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

OGS_a6
10.

Treasury/OFAC Publishes New Cuba-Related FAQs

 
OFAC has posted new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in connection with the President’s announcement today on changes to U.S. policy with respect to Cuba.
 
The FAQs:
 

Frequently Asked Questions on President Trump’s Cuba Announcement
 
(1) How will OFAC implement the changes to the Cuba sanctions program announced by the President on June 16, 2017?  Are the changes effective immediately?
 
OFAC will implement the Treasury-specific changes via amendments to its Cuban Assets Control Regulations.  The Department of Commerce will implement any necessary changes via amendments to its Export Administration Regulations.  OFAC expects to issue its regulatory amendments in the coming months.  The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
 
(2) What is individual people-to-people travel, and how does the President’s announcement impact this travel authorization?
 
Individual people-to-people travel is educational travel that: (i) does not involve academic study pursuant to a degree program; and (ii) does not take place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact.  The President instructed Treasury to issue regulations that will end individual people-to-people travel.  The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
 
(3) Will group people-to-people travel still be authorized?
 
Yes.  Group people-to-people travel is educational travel not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program that takes place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact.  Travelers utilizing this travel authorization must maintain a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that are intended to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, and that will result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba.  An employee, consultant, or agent of the group must accompany each group to ensure that each traveler maintains a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities.  
 
(4) How do the changes announced by the President on June 16, 2017 affect individual people-to-people travelers who have already begun making their travel arrangements (such as purchasing flights, hotels, or rental cars)?
 
The announced changes do not take effect until OFAC issues new regulations.  Provided that the traveler has already completed at least one travel-related transaction (such as purchasing a flight or reserving accommodation) prior to the President’s announcement on June 16, 2017, all additional travel-related transactions for that trip, whether the trip occurs before or after OFAC’s new regulations are issued, would also be authorized, provided the travel-related transactions are consistent with OFAC’s regulations as of June 16, 2017.
Department of the Treasury  Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
 
(5) How do the changes announced by the President on June 16, 2017 affect other authorized travelers to Cuba whose travel arrangements may include direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy?
 
The announced changes do not take effect until OFAC issues new regulations.  Consistent with the Administration’s interest in not negatively impacting Americans for arranging lawful travel to Cuba, any travel-related arrangements that include direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy will be permitted provided that those travel arrangements were initiated prior to the issuance of the forthcoming regulations.    
 
(6) How do the changes announced by the President on June 16, 2017 affect companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction that are already engaged in the Cuban market and that may undertake direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy?
 
The announced changes do not take effect until OFAC issues new regulations.  Consistent with the Administration’s interest in not negatively impacting American businesses for engaging in lawful commercial opportunities, any Cuba-related commercial engagement that includes direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy will be permitted provided that those commercial engagements were in place prior to the issuance of the forthcoming regulations.    
 
(7) Does the new policy affect how persons subject to U.S jurisdiction may purchase airline tickets for authorized travel to Cuba?
 
No. The new policy will not change how persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction traveling to Cuba pursuant to the 12 categories of authorized travel may purchase their airline tickets. 
 
(8) Can I continue to send authorized remittances to Cuba?
 
Yes.  The announced policy changes will not change the authorizations for sending remittances to Cuba.  Additionally, the announced changes include an exception that will allow for transactions incidental to the sending, processing, and receipt of authorized remittances to the extent they would otherwise be restricted by the new policy limiting transactions with certain identified Cuban military, intelligence, or security services.  As a result, the restrictions on certain transactions in the new Cuba policy will not limit the ability to send or receive authorized remittances.
 
(9) How does the new policy impact other authorized travel to Cuba by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction?
 
The new policy will not result in changes to the other (non-individual people-to-people) authorizations for travel.  Following the issuance of OFAC’s regulatory changes, travel-related transactions with prohibited entities identified by the State Department generally will not be permitted. Guidance will accompany the issuance of the new regulations.
 
(10) How will the new policy impact existing OFAC specific licenses?
 
The forthcoming regulations will be prospective and thus will not affect existing contracts and licenses.  
 
(11) How will U.S. companies know if their Cuban counterpart is affiliated with a prohibited entity or sub-entity in Cuba?
 
The State Department will be publishing a list of entities with which direct transactions generally will not be permitted.  Guidance will accompany the issuance of the new regulations.  The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
 
(12) Is authorized travel by cruise ship or passenger vessel to Cuba impacted by the new Cuba policy? 
 
Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction will still be able to engage in authorized travel to Cuba by cruise ship or passenger vessel. 
 
Following the issuance of OFAC’s regulatory changes, travel-related transactions with prohibited entities identified by the State Department generally will not be permitted.  Guidance will accompany the issuance of the new regulations.
 
For more information on the National Security Presidential Memorandum visit:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/06/16/fact-sheet-cuba-policy. 
 

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

OGS_a7
11.

EU INTA Announces Next Meeting on 19-20 June

 
The next meeting of the EU’s International Trade Committee (INTA) will take place on Monday, 19 June (from 15.00 to 16.00 jointly with FEMM, and from 16.00 to 18.30) and on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 (from 9.00 to 18.30), room: József Antall – JAN 6Q2.
 
The meeting will be web-streamed (except for the “in-camera” parts) and can be followed live on-line.
 
Item #13 on the agenda concerns the Union regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items (recast).
 
Draft Agenda, meeting documents and main highlights of this meeting can be found here

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

OGS_a8
12.

WCO Publishes Classification Decisions from Latest Session of the Harmonized System Committee

 
The World Customs Organization (WCO) today published the classification decisions taken at the last Session of the Harmonized System Committee (59th Session) in March 2017: Classification Rulings and Amendments to the Explanatory Notes and to the Compendium of Classification Opinions.

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a1
13.

Defense News: “US Lawmakers Skeptical of Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon”

(Source:
Defense News, 15 June 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle laid bare their suspicions about U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Lebanon over the countries’ supposed links to terror on Thursday, perhaps signaling choppy waters in the alliances.
 
Days after the Senate vote to block smart-bomb sales to Riyadh narrowly failed, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee grilled the Trump administration’s top officials for foreign military sales on the wisdom of a larger $110 billion deal with Saudi Arabia.
 
How does the U.S. hold Saudi Arabia accountable for civilian casualties in its war against Yemen’s Houthi rebels? Democrats pressed Tina Kaidanow, acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs, and Vice Adm. Joseph Rixey, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s outgoing director, on the question. The U.S. has reportedly been offering logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition in the war. …  
 
Saudi Arabia was not the only target for concern at the hearing. Subcommittee chairman Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, sought assurances U.S. small arms sold to Lebanon would not end up in the hands of Hezbollah. The United Nations earlier this year warned Lebanon’s president not to arm the militant organization after he suggested he would in a conflict with Israel.
 
The U.S. assists Lebanese government forces to guarantee its sovereignty and protect it against Iran and the Islamic State, Kaidanow said.
 
  “We watch extremely carefully, and we are confident thus far that no weapons have been transferred from the Lebanese government or armed forces into the hands of those who should not get them, including Hezbollah,” she said.
 
Poe also wanted to know how the United States is ensuring U.S.-supplied weapons to Pakistan won’t be used against its troops in Afghanistan, echoing a line of questioning from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. … 

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

NWS_a2
14.

Reuters: “Trump Orders Clampdown on Cuba Travel and Trade, Curbing Obama Détente”

(Source:
Reuters, 16 June 2017.)
 
President Donald Trump on Friday ordered tighter restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba and a clampdown on U.S. business dealings with the island’s military, saying “with God’s help a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve.”
 
As Trump laid out his new Cuba policy in a speech in Miami, the White House announced plans to roll back parts of former President Barack Obama’s historic opening to the communist-ruled country after a 2014 diplomatic breakthrough between the two former Cold War foes. But Trump was leaving many of Obama’s changes, including the reopened U.S. embassy in Havana, in place even as he sought to show he was making good on a campaign promise to take a tougher line against Cuba. “We will not be silent in the face of communist oppression any longer,” Trump told a cheering crowd in Miami’s Cuban-American enclave of Little Havana, including Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who helped forge the new restrictions on Cuba.
 
Trump’s revised approach, which will be enshrined in a new presidential directive, calls for stricter enforcement of a longtime ban on Americans going to Cuba as tourists and seeks to prevent U.S. dollars from being used to fund what the new U.S. administration sees as a repressive military-dominated government.
 
But facing pressure from U.S. businesses and even some fellow Republicans to avoid turning back the clock completely in relations with communist-ruled Cuba, the Republican president chose to leave intact many of his Democratic predecessor’s steps toward normalization. The new policy bans most U.S. business transactions with the Armed Forces Business Enterprises Group, a Cuban conglomerate involved in all sectors of the economy, but makes some exceptions, including for air and sea travel, according to U.S. officials. This will essentially shield U.S. airlines and cruise lines serving the island. However, Trump will stop short of breaking diplomatic relations restored in 2015 after more than five decades of hostilities. He will not cut off recently resumed direct U.S.-Cuba commercial flights or cruise-ship travel, though his more restrictive policy seems certain to dampen new economic ties overall.
 
The administration, according to one White House official, has no intention of “disrupting” existing business ventures such as one struck under Obama by Starwood Hotels Inc., which is owned by Marriott International Inc., to manage a historic Havana hotel. Nor does Trump plan to reinstate limits that Obama lifted on the amount of the island’s coveted rum and cigars that Americans can bring home for personal use. While the changes are far-reaching, they appear to be less sweeping than many U.S. pro-engagement advocates had feared. Still, it will be the latest attempt by Trump to overturn parts of Obama’s presidential legacy. He has already pulled the United States out of a major international climate treaty and is trying to scrap his predecessor’s landmark healthcare program.

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

NWS_a3
15.

Sputnik News: “Danish Surveillance Helps Dictators Spy on Dissenters”

(Source:
Sputnik News, 16 June 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
Denmark’s profile as a champion of freedom of speech may suffer a serious dent as the Nordic country was found to have sold surveillance equipment to authoritarian Gulf states in order to facilitate the monitoring of regime critics. This was done with the approval of Denmark’s authorities.
 
Aalborg-based BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, which is a subsidiary of the UK arms giant BAE Systems, sold the advanced technology to the authoritarian Gulf states Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates with the consent from Danish authorities, the Danish newspaper Information reported.
 

The deal with the Saudis alone is estimated to be worth up to 70 million DKK ($10.1mln). Approval was given to the Danish firm despite EU rules forbidding the proliferation of European technology for oppression of citizens in countries it deems as dictatorships. … 

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

NWS_a4
16.

ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: NAFTA, Aluminum, Trade Preferences, Payment Options”

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
  – 19 June- deadline to seek judicial review of CBP origin ruling on visitor management system
  – 20 June – ST&R webinar: International Payment Options 101
  – 20 June – ITC hearing on expanding NAFTA duty-free treatment
  – 21 June – ST&R webinar: Trade Preferences: One Goal, Different Approaches
  – 21 June- deadline for comments to EPA on proposed update to import requirements for genetically engineered organisms
  – 21 June- deadline for comments to CPSC on proposed safety standard for infant inclined sleep products
  – 22 June – DOC hearing on national security investigation of aluminum
  – 22 June – deadline for comments to ITC on potential IPR probe of backpack chairs
  – 23 June- deadline for comments to DOC on national security investigation of aluminum
  – 23 June – deadline for comments on USDA information collection on imports of pomegranates from Chile

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

NWS_a5
17.

ST&R Trade Report: “USTR Seeks Budget Increase to Fund Trade Expansion and Enforcement Efforts”

 
The Trump administration is proposing to increase the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s budget in fiscal year 2018 to help the agency achieve a number of goals and objectives.
 
The budget proposal would give USTR $57.6 million, up 5.9 percent from FY 2017, and eight additional staff members, increasing the total to 238. The administration’s budget submission for USTR to Congress states that these additional resources would assist USTR in preparing to (1) take significant action “far beyond that taken by previous administrations,” including self-initiated domestic litigation in defense of U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses; (2) assume complete responsibility for the Interagency Center on Trade Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement; and (3) launch new bilateral negotiations with several major trading partners.
 
USTR’s five goals for FY 2018 are to open foreign markets and combat unfair trade, strictly enforce U.S. trade laws, develop sound trade policy, effectively communicate the president’s trade agenda, and achieve organizational excellence. Within these categories USTR is aiming to achieve numerous specified results, including the following.
 
  – work with World Trade Organization members to achieve full implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement;
  – review the impact of existing and potential international trade agreements, including the Information Technology Agreement expansion, the Trade in Services Agreement, and the Environmental Goods Agreement, to determine whether they should be negotiated or renegotiated;
  – work with Congress to consider possible reforms or revisions to the capacity of the Generalized System of Preferences program to take into account evolving global trade relations, including the growing competitiveness of many emerging market GSP beneficiaries;
  – negotiate and implement mutual recognition agreements with select countries to facilitate U.S. exports of telecommunications equipment and pharmaceuticals;
  – encourage southeast Asian countries, including former Trans-Pacific Partnership partners, to continue with planned trade policy reforms that are in the best interest of the U.S.;
  – develop new initiatives with countries in east and southeast Asia to break down barriers to U.S. exports in key sectors through negotiations, dispute settlement, and other measures;
  – develop and implement initiatives to respond to tariff discrimination, alternative regulatory approaches, and other potential harm to U.S. exporters caused by other countries’ free trade agreements;
  – negotiate equivalency agreements with countries that are key markets for U.S. organic exports;
  – intensify engagement with Indonesia to support the development of trade policies that promote free and fair trade and address the growing number of trade and investment irritants;
  – identify disputes to be pursued, including with respect to barriers to U.S. exports due to trade-distorting subsidization, use of border measures, localization measures discriminating against imported goods, and lack of science-based rulemaking processes;
  – expand interagency contacts and coordination, identify and locate appropriate interagency expertise for the Interagency Center on Trade Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement, and create and integrate staffing mechanisms to simplify sharing of interagency expertise;
  – press for implementation of the government of India’s plan to eliminate export subsidies in the textiles sector; and
  – work with Congress on legislative initiatives, including potential renewal of GSP and a potential miscellaneous tariff bill
 

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a0118.

A.D. Irwin, M.E. Callahan & C.J. Robertson: “Recent Cybersecurity Developments Impacting Federal Contractors”

 
* Authors: Andy D. Irwin, Esq., airwin@jenner.com; Mary Ellen Callahan, Esq., mecallahan@jenner.com; and Cynthia Robertson, Esq., crobertson@jenner.com
. All of Jenner & Block LLP, Washington DC.
*
 
On June 23, DoD will hold a four-hour “Industry Information Day” regarding the DFARS “Network Penetration and Contracting for Cloud Services” rule. Contractors and other entities [had] until June 12 to register. In anticipation of that public meeting, we thought it would be helpful to summarize relatively recent regulatory developments regarding government contractor cybersecurity.
 
In 2016 the FAR and DFARS Councils, as well as the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), published new or revised regulations impacting (or potentially impacting) government contractor cybersecurity and information governance obligations throughout the supply chain.
 
In the immediate term, the most significant of these regulatory actions is the revised DFARS “Network Penetration and Contracting for Cloud Services” rule issued on October 21, 2016. Building upon predecessor versions, this detailed and nuanced rule specifies (among many other requirements) that defense contractors (and their supply chains) are to implement dozens of cybersecurity standards set forth in NIST SP 800-171 by December 31, 2017 for purposes of protecting controlled unclassified information (CUI) on non-federal information systems and to have “adequate security” in the interim. They are also to report to DoD within 72-hours of possible breaches. [FN/1]
 
Another rule is the May 2016 FAR provision entitled, “Basic Safeguarding of Contractor Information Systems.” It applies to virtually all government contractors (whether or not they have a contract with the DFARS provision) and requires immediate implementation of a small subset of several of the more basic NIST SP 800-171 controls before December 2017.
 
NARA also issued a rule, “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI), in September 2016 as part of the government-wide effort to standardize methods for treatment of such information. On its face, the NARA rule’s scope is broader than the DFARS and FAR rules in that it (a) memorializes NARA’s overall  system for the identification and marking of CUI, including cross-referencing the CUI Registry and (b) sets forth a series of physical and cyber safeguards for such information on a government-wide basis,  including cross-referencing NIST SP 800-171 and various other standards for handling of controlled  information.
 
At present, however, the NARA rule is only directly applicable to federal agencies themselves. Agencies are in the process of implementation given the large number of requirements at issue. In this regard, the CUI registry’s website itself notes: “Existing agency policy for all sensitive unclassified information remains in effect until your agency implements the CUI program. Direct any questions to your agency’s CUI program office.” However, the rule calls for agencies to incorporate its elements by reference in contractual agreements with contractors or other private sector entities that need access to sensitive government information for purposes of supporting a federal program or for other reasons. The DFARS Network Penetration Rule, which is implemented through the DFARS 252.204-7008 and 252.204.7012, covers some but not all of the landscape of the NARA rule. A FAR rule that incorporates the NARA requirements for purposes of federal procurement has been anticipated (and is listed as an open FAR case with a report due in June) but has not yet been issued during the new Administration. On its face, the NARA rule – if implemented in industry in its entirety through a FAR provision — has the potential to be extraordinarily wide reaching, including various provisions regarding marking and physical safeguarding. It also presents interesting questions as to the interplay between the rule and existing statutes and regulations that regulate various forms of CUI such as export-controlled information.
 
The interplay of the three rules above has been difficult for many companies to plan for and digest. However, for companies in the defense and homeland security space, two proposed rules issued at the end of last year and the beginning of this year – if implemented — have the potential to present additional compliance challenges.
 
For instance, in October 2016, DoD issued a proposed rule titled “Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data and Technology from Public Disclosure,” that would purport to temporarily revoke contractor to DoD-origin export controlled information if DoD receives “substantial and credible information” of potential contractor violations of US export control law. Moreover, the rule calls for DoD to refer potential export control violations to law enforcement. It also sets forth a marking protocol that is not necessarily consistent with the NARA CUI rule or existing practice among many regulated defense contractors  under export control regulations. A final or interim rule was expected in May 2017 but as of this writing  has not been issued.
 
In the context of cybersecurity, the proposed rule begs the question as to whether a report of a cyberbreach involving export-controlled information under the DFARS Network Penetration rule could lead to a revocation of the right to access DoD export-controlled information or law enforcement referrals. (If the contractor had adequate security (and by December 2017 had implemented NIST 800-171), it would likely take the position that a hacking incident is not an “export”, but instead a “theft”). Moreover, how would the proposed rule, if adapted, interact with other established voluntary disclosure regimes for potential export control violations?
 
As to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contractors, the plot thickened in January 2017 when DHS issued its own proposed revision to the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) titled, “Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Information.” Unlike the emerging norm established by DoD and adopted by NARA, the DHS proposed rule does not specifically recognize NIST 800-171 as the baseline cyber standard and it also introduces several categories of CUI that are not part of the NARA CUI registry. Therefore, if adopted in its present form, the DHS rule has the potential to create an additional regulatory hurdle for companies that work with multiple agencies, as well as significant cost burden.
 
How all of these rules play out for the remainder of 2017 is anyone’s guess. However, DoD’s Industry Day on June 23, may supply a good opportunity to discuss these topics and others.
 
——–
  *
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Associate, Eric K. Herendeen, and summer associate, Umer M. Chaudry.
  [FN/1] This rule overlaps in part with DoD’s separate revised rule, “
Department of Defense (DoD)’s Defense Industrial base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) Activities
“, which, among other things, also addresses cyber-reporting and information sharing for the defense industrial base (under both contracting and grant programs) issued on October 4, 2016.

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

COMM_a219.

K. Chia, E. Lim & Yi Lin Seng: “New End-User Statement Format for Strategic Goods Permits in Singapore”

 
* Authors: Ken Chia, Esq., ken.chia@bakermckenzie.com; Eugene Lim, Esq., eugene.lim@bakermckenzie.com; and Yi Lin Seng, Esq., yilin.seng@bakermckenzie.com. All of Baker McKenzie, Singapore.
 
Pursuant to Circular No. 06/2017 issued on 14 June 2017, Singapore Customs revised the End-User Statement (EUS) format for strategic goods permits in Singapore. While a single EUS format had been used previously for all permits under the Strategic Trade Scheme (STS), Singapore Customs has now introduced two different EUS formats for STS Bulk Permits and STS Individual Permits respectively, in light of the diverse nature of business operations and business needs involved in strategic goods.
 
We discuss the changes in further detail below.
 
(1) OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE EUS FORMATS
 
Changes Applicable to the EUS Format for Both STS permits
 
Under the previous EUS format, the end-user would have to indicate the value of the strategic goods exported. This requirement is now removed for the revised EUS formats for both STS permits.
 
The new format further clarifies that the EUS applies to all exports of strategic goods, regardless of whether such goods were loaned, gifted, purchased, received, whether directly or indirectly, from the exporter. This change is in line with the Singapore government’s strict stance in deterring and pre-empting increasingly sophisticated and indirect means of illicitly transferring strategic goods.
 
Changes Applicable to the EUS Format for STS Bulk Permits
 
The new format states that the new EUS for STS Bulk Permits will be valid for a period of three years from the date it has been signed, or up till the validity period of the relevant STS Bulk Permit. Further, the previous requirement to indicate the quantity of the strategic goods exported has now been removed. The new EUS would also have to be signed by an authorised signatory who is at least of a managerial level, as compared to the previous EUS format which required an authorised signature accompanied with the company stamp.
 
The new EUS format for STS Bulk Permit will be implemented with immediate effect. For existing STS Bulk Permit holders, the EUS format will apply in the following cases:
 
  (a) where the existing STS Bulk Permit holder has a new end-user; and
  (b) in relation to an existing end-user, where there are changes to the EUS or where the existing STS Bulk Permit holder renews his STS Bulk Permit, whichever is earlier.
 
Singapore Customs has also announced that the new EUS format for STS Bulk Permits will supersede any EUS facilitations granted before 1 January 2015.
 
Changes Applicable to EUS Format for STS Individual Permits
 
The new EUS format for STS Individual Permits will be implemented with effect from 1 July 2017. Apart from the changes mentioned above, the new EUS format for STS Individual Permits is broadly similar to the previous EUS format issued by Singapore Customs.
 
(2) HOW THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT YOU
 
While we understand that it was previously not compulsory to use the EUS format provided by the Singapore Customs, although such use was generally encouraged, the new EUS formats appear to be mandatory. In other words, all new EUS would likely have to comply with the applicable EUS formats.
 
The changes would also affect existing STS Bulk Permit holders who have entered into EUS facilitations and arrangements with the Singapore Customs before 1 January 2015. In particular, all concessionary arrangements reached before this date in relation to EUS would now be superseded by the requirement to submit EUS in accordance with the revised format for STS Bulk Permits.
 
Traders dealing with strategic goods should immediately evaluate the impact of the rollout of these new EUS formats and requirements, and review the form of EUS it currently utilizes. Traders should be prepared to use the revised formats where necessary.
 
In particular, traders which have set up supply chain or export control internal processes relying on Singapore Customs’ EUS facilitations granted earlier should immediately evaluate whether and how the removal of such EUS facilitation may affect its supply chain and export control processes.
 
The new EUS formats can be downloaded from here.

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

COMM_a320.

T.R. McBride & C. Palmeri: “The Long Arm of U.S. Sanctions: Penalty Imposed Against Canadian Subsidiary of U.S. Subsidiary of Japanese Company”

 
Authors: Thaddeus R. McBride, Esq., tmcbride@bassberry.com; and Cheryl A. Palmeri, Esq., cpalmeri@bassberry.com. Both of Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, Washington DC.
 
  * American Honda Finance Corporation pays for alleged violations of U.S. sanctions on Cuba
  * Violation committed by American Honda’s subsidiary in Canada
  * Penalty underscores breadth of U.S. jurisdiction, importance of compliance reviews
 
On June 8, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a monetary penalty against American Honda Finance Corporation (American Honda) for alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), the primary regulations by which the United States imposes economic sanctions on Cuba.  A copy of the OFAC press release announcing the penalty is available here.
 
The penalty amount, approximately $88,000, is not particularly noteworthy.  Nor, as was the case with certain other OFAC matters, did the enforcement action take particularly long to conclude: the conduct occurred between 2011 and 2014.
 
What we think is notable is that the matter involved the Canadian affiliate of a global company, acting entirely independently of U.S. persons, entirely outside the United States.  (There is no indication that any funds passed through the United States; such funds transfers have previously been the basis for liability.)  The matter thus serves as yet another reminder of the very long arm of U.S. sanctions jurisdiction.  The matter likewise underscores the need for periodic compliance reviews.
 
Facts
.  While the penalty was imposed against American Honda, it was in fact the company’s Canadian subsidiary – Honda Canada Finance, Inc. (Honda Canada) – that engaged in the conduct that triggered liability.  According to OFAC, Honda Canada is majority-owned by American Honda.  Thus, under the CACR, Honda Canada is generally prohibited from doing business with Cuban parties just as if it were a U.S. company.
 
According to OFAC, between 2011 and 2014 Honda Canada “approved and financed 13 lease agreements between an unaffiliated Honda dealership in Ottawa, Canada and the Embassy of Cuba in connection with the Cuban Embassy’s leasing of several Honda vehicles.”  OFAC also helpfully notes that the actual lessor of the vehicles had the word “Cuba” in its name, i.e., Honda Canada could not plead ignorance that it was involved in financial transactions with a Cuban entity.
 
Interestingly, this fact did not help Honda Canada when screening transactions against OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) and Blocked Persons, which lists parties with which U.S. companies and their non-U.S. subsidiaries – in the case of Cuba transactions – cannot engage.  As OFAC specifically points out, Honda Canada had a mechanism in place to review transactions against the SDN List.  However, that mechanism did not provide for a review of the names of countries subject to comprehensive U.S. sanctions.
 
Of course, for a Canadian company, there would ordinarily be no prohibition on conducting business in Cuba or with a Cuban party.  Just the opposite, in fact: under the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, a Canadian company like Honda Canada is generally prohibited from complying with the U.S. embargo of Cuba.  It is therefore possible that Honda Canada affirmatively (and perhaps even reasonably) chose to comply with the laws of its home country rather than the laws of the United States.
 
Penalty determination
.  According to OFAC, the transactions that constituted the alleged violations were valued at roughly $277,000, which corresponds to a base penalty of $138,500.  Yet OFAC agreed to reduce the penalty based on the following factors:
 
  – American Honda took remedial action, including implementing a new OFAC compliance policy.
  – American Honda cooperated in OFAC’s investigation, including through:
    * Making an initial voluntary disclosure of the violations,
    * Providing relevant information to the agency in a timely and efficient manner, and
    * Tolling the statute of limitations.
  – OFAC issued a license to American Honda in June 2015 regarding the leases, e., OFAC must not have thought the conduct was that problematic or else presumably the agency would not have issued the license.
 
Analysis
.  This is another OFAC action against a non-U.S. company for action that apparently took place entirely outside the United States, presumably complied with the law of the country in which it occurred, and did not involve any U.S. individuals or entities.  And beyond the fact that Honda Canada was a subsidiary of a U.S. company, there is no indication that American Honda took any steps to approve, support or otherwise facilitate Honda Canada’s approval of the 13 lease agreements.  This is extraterritorial jurisdiction at its most brazen.
 
We also think it worthwhile to point out that this occurred at Honda, one of the largest companies in the world.  Clearly the company has resources available to implement a robust compliance program.  And frankly there is no indication that the compliance program was not robust.
 
But it did apparently contain a gap with respect to screening.  Which serves as a useful reminder that companies should periodically review and assess their compliance program for such gaps.  An effective compliance program has to be dynamic both to account for changes to the law and to consistently evolve and improve to address the myriad sanctions challenges that arise.  Routine compliance assessments are a critical part of preventing violations before they occur.

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

COMM_a421.

R.C. Burns: “
Delaware Bill Proposes Mandatory OFAC Screening: What Could Go Wrong?

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067).
 
I love Delaware. I’ve spent many days on the Delaware beaches. Even so, recent legislation proposed in the Delaware House deserves ridicule and I’m willing to do that, even if that means I’m banned from ever having another slice of Grotto Pizza or bucket of Thrasher’s Fries.
 
The bill in question, House Bill No. 57, prohibits the Delaware Secretary of State from registering LLCs where the members are subject to OFAC sanctions.  It also requires registered agents to screen members to avoid presenting applications with sanctioned members.
 
The bill is the brainchild of the Delaware Coalition for Open Government  (“DelCOG”), which after untold hours researching Delaware LLCs, has discovered two (yes, two) cases where Delaware has registered LLCs on the OFAC SDN List. The companies in question are 200G PSA Holdings, LLC and Agusta Grand I, LLC, which were designated as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers by OFAC on February 13, 2017. Both companies were registered in Delaware, respectively, on January 29, 2013, and October 28, 2014. Because the designation occurred after the companies were registered in Delaware, the proposed legislation would not have had any impact on the registration of these companies.
 
DelCOG and the bill’s drafters seem to be unaware that SDNs will get registered in Delaware only when their designation occurs after registration. If it occurs before, the companies will be unable to pay their fees because banks will almost certainly block all payment of registration and agent fees. So the proposed legislation does not really accomplish its intended purpose at all.
 
What is does do is create is ample opportunity for confusion. Here’s some language from the bill:
 
The Secretary of State shall neither certify for formation or domestication nor register as a limited liability company any citizen, group, organization, or government of a listed Sanctioned Nation in the Active Sanctions Program of, or any Specially Designated National listed as such by, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury when federal law is violated thereby.
 
The phrases “listed Sanctioned Nation in the Active Sanctions Program” is not defined in the proposed bill. This is an apparent reference to this web page on the OFAC site which lists countries subject to comprehensive sanctions like Syria and Iran but also countries with regime-based sanctions, such as Iraq and Venezuela, where only designated individuals and entities are affected. This sets up the possibility that when anyone in Venezuela (who is not an SDN) is a member of an LLC seeking registration the Delaware Secretary of State will have to decide whether this violates federal law. The same will occur if the member is a U.S. permanent resident that is also an Iranian citizen. Neither of these instances would violate federal law, but who knows what the Secretary of State of Delaware will decide.
 
The proposed legislation also wanders into CFIUS territory with equally dubious results. The bill requires registered agents to determine if the purpose of the proposed LLC conflicts with the “prohibited or restricted investment … requirements” of Exon-Florio, 50 U.S.C. App. § 2170. In such cases, the registered agent cannot file the registration application on behalf of the LLC and must advise them to file a CFIUS notice. Apparently, the drafters of the bill are not aware that the CFIUS notice process is voluntary.
 
This bill amply demonstrates the problems that arise when states take it upon themselves to interpret and enforce federal law.

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

COMM_a522.

Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
 gstanley@glstrade.com.
 
For the purpose of Part 130 statements, “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, or Coast Guard, as well as the national guard and national police (not state/local police), of a foreign country. This term also includes any military unit or military personnel organized under or assigned to an international organization.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a223
. 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:

* 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: Webinar; ”
US International Traffic in Arms Regulations;” Foreign Trade Association

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

* Jun 21: Webinar; ”
Trade Preferences: One Goal, Different Approaches;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com

Jun 22: Sydney, Australia; “
ITAR, EAR and AU Export Controls Training
;” Defence Connect

# Jun 28-29: Chisinau, Moldova; ”
Regional Workshop for Eastern Europe
;” EU P2P Export Control Programme

* Jul 5: Cambridge UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk

* Jul 5: Cambridge UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk

* 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 20: Webinar; ”
Destination Control Statements;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP

* Jul 26-27: Oklahoma City 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

*
Jul 27: Webinar; ”
Site Visits, Enforcement Actions, and Voluntary Disclosures;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP
*
Aug 1: Webinar; ”
Consideration for Exporting to China;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP
#
Aug 2-3: Naperville, IN; “Automated Export System Compliance Seminar and Workshop;” Commerce/Census, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, State/DDTC, Treasury

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

*
Aug 17: Webinar; ”
Export Controls in the Cloud;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP

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

International Compliance Professionals Association; wizard@icpainc.org

* Sep 4: Glasgow, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk

* Sep 5: Glasgow, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 5: Glasgow, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 5: Glasgow, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* 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 21: 
Webinar; “
US Export Administration Regulations
;
” Foreign Trade Association

* Sep 20-22: Houston TX; ”
Advanced Topics in Customs Compliance Conference;” Deleon Trade LLC
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

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

* Sep 28: Oxford, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Sep 28: Oxford, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

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

* Oct 10-12: Dallas TX; “
‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export/Import Control Training and Education Program
;” Partnering for Compliance
 

Oct 12-13: Boston, MA; “Automated Export System Compliance Seminar and Workshop;” Commerce/Census, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, State/DDTC, Treasury

* 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

* Nov 15: Leeds, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Nijkerk, the Netherlands; “Training Export Control” [in Dutch]; Fenedex
* Dec 4-7: Miami FL; “
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 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a124
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

* Igor Stravinsky (Igor Fyodorovich Stravinsky, 17 Jun 1882 – 6 Apr 1971, was a Russian-born composer, pianist, and conductor. He is widely considered one of the most important and influential composers of the 20th century.)
  – “The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one’s self. And the arbitrariness of the constraint serves only to obtain precision of execution.”
  – “Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.”
 
* Geronimo (born Goyaałé, “the one who yawns”, 16 Jun 1829 – 17 Feb 1909, was a prominent leader and medicine man of the Apache tribe. From 1850 to 1886 Geronimo joined with members of other Apache bands to carry out numerous raids in resistance of US and Mexican military incursions to Apache populated areas of northern Mexico and the American territories of New Mexico and Arizona. In his old age, Geronimo became a celebrity, appearing at public events. He died at the Fort Sill hospital in 1909, still a prisoner of war.  U.S. paratroopers traditionally shout “Geronimo” to show they have no fear of jumping out of an airplane.)
  – “The soldiers never explained to the government when an Indian was wronged, but reported the misdeeds of the Indians.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
A woman goes into a clothing store and says to the clerk, “I’d like to try on that red dress in the store window.” The clerk replies, “Sorry, Ma’m, but you’ll have to use one of the dressing rooms, like everyone else.” 
  — Tom Ratkowski, Milwaukee, WI

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

EN_a225. 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: 14 Jun 2017: 82 FR 27108-271: Wassenaar Arrangement 2015 Plenary Agreements Implementation, Removal of Foreign National Review Requirements, and Information Security Updates; Corrections

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 16 Jun 2017: 
82 FR 27613-27614: Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations
 
 
*
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_a326
. 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