;

17-1113 Monday “Daily Bugle”

17-1113 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 13 November 2017

TOP
The Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events.  Subscribe 
herefor free subscription. Contact us
for advertising inquiries and rates. (The Daily Bugle was not published Friday, 10 November, a U.S. Federal Holiday.) 
 

  1. Treasury/OFAC Removes Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions Regulations
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DoD/DSS Removes ECP Phone Log Requirements
  4. DHS/CBP Posts Reminder Concerning Deployment G, Release 3 on 9 Dec
  5. State/DDTC Posts Name Change for NEC Corporation Internal Corporate
  6. Treasury/OFAC Posts New Venezuela-Related FAQs
  1. Defense News: “Norwegian Arms Exports May End for Saudi Coalition Fighting in Yemen”
  2. Expeditors News: “Argentina Launches AEO Program”
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “New Trade Restrictions Continuing to Slow Among G-20 Countries, WTO Finds”
  1. A.P. Bosch & V.J.A. Goossen: “Dutch Freight Forwarder Fined 80,000 Euros for Transiting Military Items without Obtaining a Transit License”
  2. C. Todgham Cherniak: “Are You Asking the Right Questions When You Travel with Electronic Devices?”
  3. D.M. Edelman: “Cuba Sanctions Guidance: November 2017 Update”
  4. M. Volkov: “COSO Framework: Breaking Down the Silos and Bringing Everyone Together (Part 2 of 2)”
  5. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  6. R.C. Burns: “When You Might Not Be Libre To Drink a Cuba Libre in Cuba”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings
  1. ECTI Presents “Advanced Encryption Classification: Learning by Doing,” Webinar, 6 Dec
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Sep 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (9 Nov 2017), FACR/OFAC (13 Nov 2017), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (20 Oct 2017), ITAR (30 Aug 2017) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. Treasury/OFAC Removes Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions Regulations

(Source: Federal Register, 13 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 52209-52210: Removal of Côte d’Ivoire 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 Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions Regulations as a result of the termination of the national emergency on which the regulations were based.
* DATES: Effective: November 13, 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 September 14, 2016, the President issued Executive Order 13739, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to Côte d’Ivoire” (E.O. 13739). In E.O. 13739, the President found that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in E.O. 13396 with respect to the situation in or in relation to Côte d’Ivoire had been significantly altered by the progress achieved in the stabilization of Côte d’Ivoire, including the successful conduct of the October 2015 presidential election, progress on the management of arms and related materiel, and the combatting of illicit trafficking in natural resources. Accordingly, and in view of the removal of multilateral sanctions by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 2283, the President terminated the national emergency and revoked E.O. 13396.
   Therefore, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) and section 1 of E.O. 13739, termination of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13396 shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending and not fully concluded or determined as of 8:00 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 14, 2016 (the effective date of E.O. 13739), any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to the effective date, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to the effective date. …
 
   Dated: November 7, 2017.
John E. Smith, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

* Justice; Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmental Information [Publication Date: 14 November 2017.]
 
* State; NOTICES; Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Islamic Resistance Movement [Publication Date: 14 November 2017.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

  

(Source:
DoD/DSS, 9 Nov 2017.)
 
DSS Director released a memo, dated November 8, 2017, removing certain phone log requirements outlined in the Electronic Communications Plan (ECP). In keeping with our theme of Partnering with Industry, DSS listened to industry’s concerns regarding phone logs, reviewed the requirements outlined in the ECP, and determined it is in the best interest of both DSS and industry partners to remove the phone log requirement. Click here to read the full memo.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

OGS_a45
. DHS/CBP Posts Reminder Concerning Deployment G, Release 3 on 9 Dec

(Source:
CSMS #17-000704, 9 Nov 2017.)
 

On December 9, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will deploy Statements, e214 (electronic Foreign Trade Zone admission), and Manufacturer ID (MID) Creation capabilities in ACE.

Details of this deployment can be found in the Deployment G, Release 3 Information Notice on CBP.gov/ACE under the “What’s New with ACE” Section or here.

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

(Source:
State/DDTC
13 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
Effective immediately the follow wholly-owned subsidiaries of NEC will change as follows:
 
From:
  – NEC Engineering, Ltd. (NECE)
  – NEC Network Products, Ltd. (NECNP)
  – NEC Yamanashi, Ltd. (NECY)
  – NEC Communication Systems, Ltd. (NECCS)
 
To:
  – NEC Platforms, Ltd.
 
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. …
 

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

OGS_a67
. Treasury/OFAC Posts New Venezuela-Related FAQs

(Source:
Treasury/OFAC, 9 Nov 2017.)

 

On 9 Nov 2017, OFAC published two new Frequently Asked Questions. The first FAQ pertains to the treatment of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) subsidiaries under Executive Order 13808 (“Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to the Situation in Venezuela”). The second FAQ deals with U.S. person participation in meetings about restructuring outstanding Venezuelan and PdVSA debt that existed prior to the effective date of Executive Order 13808.  

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a1
8. Defense News: “Norwegian Arms Exports May End for Saudi Coalition Fighting in Yemen”

(Source: Defense News, 13 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.] 
 
Opposition leaders in Norway want the government to suspend exports to Middle Eastern states engaged in cross-border conflicts or internal unrest.
 
Norway’s arms export policy has come under close scrutiny from a number of political parties led by the Socialist Left Party, or SV, in the national parliament.
 
The push for tighter controls arises as latest data reveal Norwegian arms exports rose by 10 percent in 2016 to 3.6 billion kroners (U.S. $442 million). The figures indicate that the Middle East is becoming a more important market for Norway’s defense companies.
 
  “There should be more checks and balances to our exports that prevent the weapons and munitions we export from being used in conflicts, such as the war in Yemen where Saudi Arabia is the key actor. Norway’s foreign ministry is unable to say if Norwegian weapons are being used in such conflicts,” said Petter Eide, a lawmaker with the SV and a member of the parliamentary Justice Committee.
 
The SV, which is lobbying support from among the Liberal, Centre, Labour and Christian Democrat parties, hopes to pressure the government into banning arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its ally nations in the Middle East who joined the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen’s civil war. … 
 
The present government, in the shape of Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s Conservative-Progress coalition, has shown no immediate urgency to introduce new policies to tighten existing arm export rules and regulations.
 
Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide insists Norway already imposes a rigid code of transparency to military equipment exports, which must adhere to a “strict and clear regulatory framework.”
 
Søreide, Norway’s former defense minister, added that while armed conflicts and other global threats remain challenging, Norway will continue to rigorously examine all applications for arms exports to areas where “risks are high.”
 
  “All export applications are thoroughly and concretely evaluated on an individual basis,” the minister said.
 
Rocket engines, weapon systems and ammunition are among Norway’s leading export products. The country’s two biggest exporters are Kongsberg and Nammo.
 
Of the $442 billion in exports recorded in 2016, $357 million comprised weapons systems and munitions. Exports of dual-use items, involving civilian products with military uses, amounted to $37 million.
 
Norway’s arms export regulatory agency refused 34 applications for licenses to export defense-related products in 2016. … 

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

NWS_a2
9. Expeditors News: “Argentina Launches AEO Program”

(Source: Expeditors News, 10 Nov 2017.)
 
On October 27, 2017, the Government of Argentina published General Ruling (Resolución General 4150-E), which established an Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) program.
 
The creation of the AEO program is in accordance with the World Customs Organization standards under the Securing and Facilitating Global Trade framework. This new program became effective on October 30, 2017.
For more information please go here.

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

NWS_a3
10. ST&R Trade Report: “New Trade Restrictions Continuing to Slow Among G-20 Countries, WTO Finds”

 
A recent World Trade Organization report finds that the imposition of new trade restrictions by G-20 economies has continued to slow this year while new measures to facilitate trade have remained steady.
 
The WTO’s latest monitoring report finds that G-20 economies applied 16 new trade-restrictive measures from mid-May to mid-October 2017, including new or increased tariffs, export restrictions, and local content measures. The average of three such measures per month was down from the six per month average of the previous review period (mid-October 2016 to mid-May 2017) and the estimated trade coverage of these measures fell from $47 billion to $32 billion. The WTO notes that the decline in trade-restrictive measures may reflect a number of issues: G-20 economies may have opted to implement less traditional and transparent measures to curtail trade, the WTO may have had more difficulties gaining access to the relevant information, and/or G-20 economies implemented fewer such measures.
 
The initiation of trade remedy investigations represented more than 50 percent of trade measures recorded, and new antidumping investigations accounted for nearly 80 percent of all such initiations. The ratio of initiations (19) to terminations (6) was the highest since 2012, but there were declines in both categories. The trade coverage of initiations was estimated at $29 billion compared to $1 billion for terminations. The main sectors affected by initiations were electrical machinery and parts thereof, organic chemicals, and paper products, while the main sectors where trade remedies were terminated were organic chemicals, iron and steel, and manmade filaments.
 
G-20 economies also adopted 28 new measures aimed at facilitating trade, such as the elimination or reduction of tariffs and the simplification of customs procedures. The average of six such measures per month was unchanged from the previous review period but the estimated trade coverage of trade-facilitating measures fell sharply from $163 billion to $27 billion. The WTO states that this comparatively low figure may reflect that this review period did not see measures on high-value or highly-traded goods like those recorded in the previous report.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a01
11. A.P. Bosch & V.J.A. Goossen: “Dutch Freight Forwarder Fined 80,000 Euros for Transiting Military Items without Obtaining a Transit License

(Source:
Full Circle Compliance
, 13 Nov 2017.)
 
* Authors: Alexander P. Bosch,
apbosch@fullcirclecompliance.eu
; and Vincent J.A. Goossen,
vjagoossen@fullcirclecompliance.eu
. Both of Full Circle Compliance and Assistant Editor of the Daily Bugle.
 

On 9 November 2017, the
Dutch Public Prosecution service (“Openbaar Ministerie”) fined a Dutch freight solutions provider
80,000 Euros for willfully transiting military goods without obtaining the required transit license. Specifically, the company transited parts of radar systems for fighter jets, which are listed on the EU Common Military list, from Malaysia to Russia via the Netherlands without the necessary Dutch government approval. The Public Prosecution service also demanded a provisional prison sentence of two months for the company’s managing director, to ensure that the defendant would added incentive not to make the same mistake again.

 
The violation was discovered on 17 March 2015, when Dutch Customs intercepted the shipment at Amsterdam Schiphol airport, which included two radar systems parts for fighter jets, listed on the EU Common Military List. To transit these parts through the Netherlands, a license is required pursuant to the
Besluit Strategische Goederen
(“Dutch Strategic Goods Order”). The defendant had not obtained a transit license for the military parts. As the intended Russian recipient was identified on various document related to the shipment, “the defendant must have known the destination of the parts,” according to the Dutch Public Prosecution service. “As the defendant was responsible taking care of the transit of the parts from Malaysia via Amsterdam Schiphol to Russia, it should therefore have known that a transit license was required.” However, even if the company had applied for authorization, it would not have been granted. Pursuant to the sanctions concerning the territorial integrity of Ukraine, it is prohibited to deliver military items, including parts and equipment, to a Russian party. 
 
The Public Prosecution service has stressed the gravity of the matter: “By exporting military goods without a license the government is robbed of its ability to oversee where military goods are being shipped to.” In addition, it stated that “through this transit, the defendant undermines sanctions regulations.” The Public Prosecution service concluded that, as a result, the Netherlands would have gotten “involved” in the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which in turn would have “undermined” the Dutch state.
 
The above case is not the first Dutch enforcement case concerning a freights solutions provider. On 24 April 2017,
the Provincial Court of Noord-Holland imposed a penalty of 50,000 Euros for a Dutch logistics
provider for willfully transiting Unmanned Aircraft Systems listed on the EU Common Military List from the United States to Saudi Arabia without a license. On the same day, the same court ruled that an airline company willfully transited goods listed on the EU Common Military List from South Africa to Ecuador without a license. The airline company was
fined 40,000 Euros of which only half was to be paid by the defendant, unless it would commit another violation within two years of sentence date
. In both cases, the intended transit shipment was stopped and investigated by Dutch customs.
 
These enforcement cases reveal that willfully transiting military goods is considered a serious violation in the Netherlands. Companies involved in shipping export controlled items are advised to develop and implement adequate control measures to avoid violations that could result in large penalties and disrupt business operations.

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

COMM_a2
12. C. Todgham Cherniak: “Are You Asking the Right Questions When You Travel with Electronic Devices?”

(Source:
LexSage Professional Corporation
, 9 Nov 2017.)
 
* Author: Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Esq, LexSage PC, 
cyndee@lexsage.com
, 416-307-4168
 
Technology is wonderful. Laptop computers are getting lighter.  Storage capacity on laptop computers, smart phones, USB keys and other electronic devices are up in the terabytes.  You can travel with your electronic devices and no one will know you are not in the office.
 
What this means is that we can travel with vast amounts of personal data (and client documents) dating back to (or before) the purchase of an electronic device.  From one electronic device, you (or the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“US CBP”) and other border officers) can access every email, text message, document, bank statement, health report, credit card statement, invoice, photo, contact, calendar entry, call history, voicemail message, to-do notation, book, magazine, internet search, app data, Facebook post, Twitter post, Netflix download history, stored password, and other information stored on your electronic device.  If your electronic device has GPS, the geo-locations of your travels can be downloaded. Your electronic device may be cloud enabled and may synchronize with or open the door to data stored elsewhere (that is not on the electronic device with which you are travelling). Certain deleted data can be retrieved with relative ease.
 
A single handheld electronic device or laptop can store more than what used to be in luggage.  The Customs Act is outdated and has not been modernized to reflect modern technology. Law-abiding citizens do not even think about the information on their electronic devices until the CBSA asks you to write your password down on a piece of paper and they disappear with your electronic device into a back room without you. As the CBSA officer walks away with all of your personal information, you finally ask the important question, “Can he/she do that”?  And then the door shuts and you have no opportunity to stop the intrusive and invasive search of your electronic device.
 
ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS:
 
  (1) What is the CBSA’s policy concerning examinations of electronic devices? Is there one?  The answer is “yes”, there is a policy that has not been posted on the CBSA website.  However, LexSage Professional Corporation has posted 
CBSA Operational Bulletin PRG-2015-31
 on its website.
 
  (2) What is the CBSA’s policy concerning examinations of solicitor-client privilege materials? Is there one?  The answer is “yes”, there is a short policy that has not been posted on the CBSA website.  However, LexSage Professional Corporation has posted 
CBSA Operational Bulletin PRG-2014-07
 on its website.
 
  (3) Will the CBSA respect solicitor-client privilege? The answer is “maybe”.  Some within the CBSA believe that Operational Bulletin PRG-2014-07 is only a guideline and that individual CBSA officers can choose not to follow the suggestions.  Also, Operational Bulletin PRG-2014-07 states that “only documents … marked “Solicitor/Client Privilege” or are addressed to/from a law firm, or a lawyer’s office, or where the documents are carried by a lawyer or notary in physical or electronic format and solicitor-client privilege is claimed or asserted … are potentially privileged.”  The CBSA officer adjudicates whether privilege applies.
 
  (
4) Is there a procedure to have someone else review solicitor-client privileged documents? The answer is “yes”, but you will have to deposit your electronic device in a sealed evidence bag and leave your electronic device with the CBSA for an indefinite period of time. Operational Bulletin PRG-2014-07 does not set out the procedure.  The procedure is contained in the 
CBSA Enforcement Manual, Part 4, Chapter 3, paragraph 96
 (also posted on the LexSage website).  There must be another CBSA officer to observe the process and sign a completed IMM 5242B form and the electronic device must be placed in a sealed evidence bag.
 
  (5) Should the CBSA access emails and texts that arrive while the CBSA is examining your smart phone or laptop? The answer is “no”. Operational Bulletin PRG-2015-31 requires that the CBSA set your electronic device to “airplane mode”.
 
  (6) Should the CBSA ask for the password to webmail or to access documents stored in the cloud? The answer is that the CBSA should only examine goods in your possession at the time you cross the border. But, what happens at the border may be different than what is in the bulletin. 
 
  (7) Should the CBSA ask you to access bank records and credit card statements by going into websites? The answer is “no”. The answer is that the CBSA should only examine goods in your possession at the time you cross the border. But, what happens at the border may be different than what is in the bulletin. 
 
  (8) Should the CBSA look at your photos? The answer is that it all depends on what they are looking for. If the CBSA thinks you have child pornography on your phone or computers, they do have authority to look for prohibited materials.  However, the CBSA should not go on a fishing expedition through your intimate and personal information.
 
  (9) Does the CBSA need to have reasonable suspicion before examining an electronic device. The answer is that currently the CBSA just asks to examine the device and does not have to state the reason for asking or state what they will they be looking for. The threshold for such examinations is significantly lower than what the police require to obtain a search warrant.  The CBSA does not need a search warrant to examine your electronic device.
 
  (10) Do you have to give the CBSA your password? Martin Bolduc, VP Programs Branch of the CBSA, testified before the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (“ETHI”) on September 27, 2017 that the CBSA may arrest a person who does not provide a password when requested.  The CBSA’s position is that section 13 of the Customs Act requires that a traveler answer all questions and, therefore if the CBSA officer asks for a password, it must be provided.
 
There is not a lot of case law on searches of electronic devices by the CBSA.  What we know is that paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act grants CBSA officers the authority to examine goods.  Goods is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act to include luggage and “any document in any form”. While the CBSA interprets the word “document” to include an electronic document, electronic information in or accessible through an electronic device is another matter altogether.
 
On June 8, 2017, the Privacy Commissioner, 
Daniel Therrien wrote to House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
 and made the following observations in the context on Bill C-23 relating to pre-clearance:
 
  “The fundamental problems with groundless searches of electronic devices is that these searches do not recognize that they are extremely privacy intrusive.  Yet, Bill C-23 recognizes the sensitivity of other searches, namely searches of persons, from the relatively un-intrusive frisk or pat down searches to the more intrusive strip and body cavity searches.  These searches legally cannot be performed unless an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect some legal contravention, notably the concealment of goods.  In my view, it is extremely clear that searches of electronic devices can contain the most personal and intimate information we hold … The idea that electronic devices should be considered as mere goods and therefore subject to border searches without legal grounds is clearly outdated and does not reflect the realities of modern technology.  Border controls are important and legitimate for reasons of sovereignty and public safety, but they should not be exercised arbitrarily.”
 
On September 27, 2017, the Canadian Bar Association (including myself and David Fraser as witnesses) presented 
a submission
and 
appeared before the ETHI Standing Committee
 and raised concerns about the CBSA’s policies on examinations of electronic devices. The CBA raised these same concerns.  The Submissions of the CBA raised the following points:
 
  (1) Any interpretation of the Customs Act that would authorize a warrantless search of data stored on an electronic device or accessed from an electronic device or require an individual to disclose a password to access it may be unconstitutional.
 
  (2)
The Supreme Court of Canada has modified the common law in response to technological change.
 
  (3) There is a very high expectation of privacy in the contents of electronic devices. (R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77).
 
 
(4)
In R. v. Vu, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a search with a warrant had to exclude a computer found on those premises because of the acute privacy interests engaged by these devices. Therefore, electronic devices require special rules. 
 
 
(5)
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Canadian legal system. (Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Attorney General of Canada et. al, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574.
 
 
(6)
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized that solicitor-client privilege must remain “as close to absolute as possible and should not be interfered with unless absolutely necessary”. (Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53).
 
  (7) The Customs Act should be updated to reflect modern Canadian views on our advancing technologies and it is time for Parliament to weigh in.
 
  (8) Only Canadian courts can adjudicate solicitor-client privilege claims. The CBSA is an administrative government body / an enforcer. They do not have the authority to decide what is and what is not covered by solicitor-client privilege.
 
In his testimony to the EHTI Committee on September 27, 2017, Mr. Bolduc was very clear, the CBSA takes the position they have the authority to look at anything you have on your electronic devices.  If you do not want the CBSA to look at specific information, do not have it on your electronic devices.  So, ask the right questions before you travel with your electronic devices.
Other helpful articles include:
 

  – Canadian Legal Provisions Applicable to Laptop and PDA Examinations at the Border

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

COMM_a3
13. D.M. Edelman: “Cuba Sanctions Guidance: November 2017 Update”

(Source: Export Compliance Matters, 10 Nov 2017.)
        
* Author: Doreen M. Edelman, Esq., Baker Donelson LLP, 202-508-3460, dedelman@bakerdonelson.com
.
 
On November 9, 2017, changes to the United States’ Cuba Sanctions program went into effect, as the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR), respectively. The CACR updates and EAR updates implement the changes announced by President Trump in his June 2017 speech and associated National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM). The State Department also published its Cuba Restricted List, which identifies additional restricted entities and subentities that U.S. persons are prohibited from transacting with. The following is an overview of the key changes businesses should be aware of with respect to activities involving Cuba.
 
STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE CUBA RESTRICTED LIST
 
The introduction of the Cuba Restricted List seeks to channel funds away from the Cuban military, intelligence, and security services. The State Department prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in direct financial transactions with the 180 entities and sub-entities currently on this new list. For purposes of this prohibition, a person engages in a direct financial transaction by acting as the originator on a transfer of funds whose ultimate beneficiary is on the Cuba Restricted List or acting as the ultimate beneficiary on a transfer of funds whose originator is on the Cuba Restricted List.
 
The Cuba Restricted List consists of ministries, holding companies, hotels, tourist agencies, marinas, stores, soft-drink manufacturers, rum distributors, and entities serving the defense and security sectors.
 
Of particular note on the Restricted List are the large military-run corporations that dominate the Cuban economy, including GAESA, CIMEX, and Gaviota. The three major holding companies control most of Cuba’s retail business and tourism sectors, along with the now-blacklisted Habaguanex S.A., which runs hotels and commercial entities in Old Havana. The Restricted List also targets a new cargo port and special trade zone outside the city of Mariel, the Mariel Special Economic Development Zone’s container terminal, which has been the focus of Cuba’s efforts to draw foreign investment in manufacturing and distribution. (The List includes Almacenes Universales and Terminal de Contenedores de Mariel, S.A., the two companies that run the terminal).
 
Other blacklisted enterprises include the state-owned rum companies Ron Caney and Ron Varadero; the soft-drink manufacturers Tropicola, Najita, and Jupina; the Gaviota-owned PhotoService, which prints photographs and sells camera batteries; the high-end jewelry store Coral Negro; and the newly opened Manzana de Gomez luxury shopping mall. Blacklisted hotels include the Manzana Kempinski, which opened this year as Cuba’s first hotel to meet the international five-star standard.
 
Notably, the State Department clarified that if an entity is not on the Cuba Restricted List, then it is not subject to sanctions even if it is controlled by or has ties to the military or GAESA; nor is there a “50% Rule” that stretches sanctions to companies owned by entities on the Cuba Restricted List.
 
While no direct financial transactions with listed entities are allowed going forward, transactions involving listed entities that were initiated prior to issuance of the list on November 9 are allowed. Similarly, should the State Department add new entities to the list in the future, direct financial transactions with an entity initiated prior to the addition of that entity to the Cuba Restricted List will be allowed, while new direct transactions with the newly listed entity will be prohibited going forward.
 
The four-month delay in releasing the detailed restrictions allowed some U.S. companies to engage with Cuba prior to the deadline, and as a result, they will be allowed to continue to do business with now-prohibited entities. These business deals include an agreement with a Puerto Rican subsidiary of a U.S. company to set up an agricultural equipment warehouse and distribution operation at the Mariel Special Economic Development Zone, as well as a deal for another U.S. agricultural equipment manufacturer to potentially sell hundreds of tractors to Cuba for its agricultural cooperatives.
 
TREASURY DEPARTMENT/OFAC
 
In conjunction with the announcement of the sanctions update, OFAC issued a Fact Sheet and a Frequently Asked Questions guideline to provide insight on the updated sanctions program. There are several notable changes and updates, including key definitions and amended general license regimes for a few of the 12 authorized categories of travel.
 
CATEGORIES OF TRAVEL
 
People-to-People Educational Travel Limited to Groups
 
Under the new regulations, individual people-to-people nonacademic travel is no longer authorized. However, those travelers planning to go to Cuba under the individual people-to-people general license that have already completed at least one travel-related transaction (such as purchasing a flight or reserving accommodation) prior to the President’s June 16, 2017 announcement may still move forward with their trip.
 
OFAC’s updated “People-to-People” general license now requires that all people-to-people nonacademic educational travel be conducted under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. Such travelers must be accompanied by someone from the sponsoring organization, and the sponsoring organization must ensure that each traveler engages in a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities.
 
In the people-to-people context, a sponsoring organization is an entity subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors educational exchanges that do not involve academic study pursuant to a degree program and that promote people-to-people contact. No specific license from OFAC is required to act as a sponsoring organization.
 
Support for the Cuban People
 
The “Support for the Cuban People” general license authorizes certain travel-related transactions and other transactions intended to provide support for the Cuban people, which include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and non-governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba. OFAC is amending this general license to require that each traveler utilizing this authorization engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhances contact with the Cuban people, supports civil society in Cuba, or promotes the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, and that results in meaningful interactions with individuals in Cuba. No direct financial transactions can be made with anyone on the Cuba Restricted List.
 
The following two examples are representative of what qualifies for the “Support for the Cuban People” general license, as stated in the updated CACR.
 
Example 1
 
An individual plans to travel to Cuba, stay in a room at a rented accommodation in a private Cuban residence (casa particular), eat at privately-owned Cuban restaurants (paladares), and shop at privately-owned stores run by self-employed Cubans (cuentapropista) during his or her four-day trip. While at the casa particular, the individual will have breakfast each morning with the Cuban host and engage with the Cuban host to learn about Cuban culture. In addition, the traveler will complete his or her full-time schedule by supporting Cuban entrepreneurs launching their privately-owned businesses. The traveler’s activities promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba. Because the individual’s qualifying activities are not limited to staying in a room at a rented accommodation in a private Cuban residence (casa particular), eating at privately-owned Cuban restaurants (paladares), and shopping at privately-owned stores run by self-employed Cubans (cuentapropista) – and the traveler maintains a full-time schedule that enhances contact with the Cuban people, supports civil society in Cuba, and promotes the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, resulting in meaningful interaction between the traveler and Cuban individuals – the individual’s travel qualifies for the general license.
 
Example 2
 
A group of friends plans to travel and maintain a full-time schedule throughout their trip by volunteering with a recognized non-governmental organization to build a school for underserved Cuban children with the local community. In their free time, the travelers plan to rent bicycles to explore the streets of Havana and visit an art museum. The travelers’ trip would qualify for the general license because the volunteer activities promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba and constitute a full-time schedule that enhances contact with the Cuban people and supports civil society in Cuba, and results in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba.
 
However, the following is an example of what does not qualify under the “Support for the Cuban People” general license according to the CACR:
 
Example 3
 
An individual plans to travel to Cuba, rent a bicycle to explore the neighborhoods and beaches, and engage in brief exchanges with local beach vendors. The individual intends to stay at a hotel that does not appear on the Cuba Restricted List. This traveler’s trip does not qualify for this general license because none of these activities promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba.
 
CARRIER SERVICES GUIDANCE
 
The existing authorizations for U.S. persons providing carrier services were unaffected by the regulatory changes. A general license still authorizes persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to provide carrier services by vessel or aircraft to, from, or within Cuba, in connection with authorized travel, without the need for a specific license from OFAC. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to provide carrier services to authorized travelers, and travelers may purchase tickets provided that their travel is authorized pursuant to the CACR. The authorization to provide carrier services is limited to transportation of authorized travelers, directly or indirectly, between the United States and Cuba. Carrier service providers and travelers are responsible for maintaining records of their Cuba-related transactions for at least five years. The CACR also permits persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction providing authorized carrier services by vessel to also provide lodging for authorized travelers onboard during the period of time the vessel is traveling to, from, or within Cuba, including when docked in a port in Cuba.
 
PROHIBITED OFFICIALS LIST EXPANDED
 
OFAC is also amending the definition of the term “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” to include certain additional individuals, going back to the definition that was in place prior to amendments made in October 2016. Existing OFAC general licenses for certain telecommunications transactions included limitations on dealing with prohibited officials. There will now be a broader list of prohibited officials excluded from these general licenses. BIS is making conforming changes to three license exceptions that include the same definition.
 
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT/BIS
 
BIS is establishing a general policy of denial for license applications to export items for use by entities and subentities on the Cuba Restricted List unless the transaction is otherwise consistent with the NSPM. BIS is also simplifying and expanding its license exceptions that authorize certain license-free exports to the Cuban private sector. These actions include a rule published by BIS that amends the licensing policy for Cuba and portions of three license exceptions available for exports and reexports to Cuba: License Exceptions Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (GFT), Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), and Support for the Cuban People (SCP).
 
UN UPDATE
 
On November 1, the UN General Assembly endorsed a resolution calling on the United States to lift its economic, commercial, and financial blockade against Cuba. While the U.S. abstained from a vote on the resolution in 2016 for the first time in 25 years, this year U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley voted no on the 2017 resolution. 191 of the 193 member countries of the United Nations voted in favor of the initiative presented by Cuba, which was opposed only by the government of the United States, along with Israel.
 
REACTIONS IN WASHINGTON
 
Florida lawmakers considered to be Cuba-hawks, including Sen. Marco Rubio and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, were unsatisfied with the extent of the sanctions update. Rubio blamed “bureaucrats in the State Department who oppose the President’s Cuba policy,” and lamented that several Cuban entities and subentities controlled by the government were left off the Cuba Restricted list, including the tourism groups Gran Caribe and Cubanacan. Although these companies are owned by the Cuban tourism ministry, Rubio pointed to the fact that the Tourism Minister is an army colonel. Ros-Lehtinen was also very critical of the update, declaring that “the acceptance of this false narrative of a Cuban private sector [is] disappointing… there is no truly independent private sector under a communist dictatorial regime because the regime controls all aspects of society.” This is likely in response to the expanded activity associated with the “Support for the Cuban People” general license, which, practically speaking, seems to have replaced the now-prohibited individual people-to-people educational travel option.

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

COMM_a4
14. M. Volkov: “COSO Framework: Breaking Down the Silos and Bringing Everyone Together (Part 2 of 2)”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog, 8 Nov 2017. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
[Editor’s Note: Part 1 of this item was included in Thursday, 9 November’s Daily Bugle]
 
The COSO framework contains important principles for structuring a global organization and its internal controls, including compliance policies and procedures. Compliance officers have to learn and use the COSO framework when communicating and convincing the CFO to embrace a new world with both compliance and financial controls within an effective governance framework.
 
Global companies are recognizing (sometimes slowly) that management silos in a company prevent information sharing and coordination. In most organizations, employees are organized around regulatory operations, function, market or geographic locations. This mindset makes it difficult for compliance, finance, human resources, procurement, and risk management to coordinate, share information and operate efficiently.
 
To illustrate my point, it is rare for audit, compliance and operations executives to have visibility into each other’s respective operations, ready access to information generated by each and specific information by location and function. Data systems are rarely integrated across an organization, and operating objectives are not consistent across functions, locations and the entire organization. Individual units may have different performance metrics. As a result, top management and the company’s board cannot readily gain access to reliable information about the company’s operations or its overall compliance performance.
 
The compliance function depends on coordination from the top of an organization. A compliance system is built on consistent guidance from the top to operations throughout the organization. Moreover, without a consistent message and set of standards, a company cannot determine of compliance objectives are being met. If a government enforcement action is initiated and the company is required to undertake an internal investigation, the company will have difficulty producing accurate and complete responses and documentation of activities. As a result, a company may not be able to validate that its governance system is operating effectively.
 
A compliance program has to be built consistently and integrated into the operations and financial controls of the company. If not, the compliance program will stumble and falter, with little documentation and verification of its operations.
 
A basic outline of compliance program standards includes:
 
  (1) A centralized compliance function with tiered staffing in regional and local operations;
  (2) Assignment of adequate resources;
  (3) A consistent set of policies and procedures;
  (4) A standard platform or compliance performance metrics in each operating unit;
  (5) A consistent and equivalent set of performance standards across management, financial and compliance functions. For example, financial performance should not have priority over management or compliance functions.
  (6) A standard third-party risk management system is deployed throughout the organization;
  (7) The integration of financial, compliance and operational controls into a single set of internal controls for reporting, measurement and monitoring.
 
The COSO framework pushes organizations to integrate compliance functions into the company’s internal controls and key performance indicators. Most global companies have used the COSO framework for managing financial controls and enterprise risk. The new COSO framework implemented in 2013 expanded to support an increased focus on compliance and reporting objectives that surround risk.
 
A single governance framework helps a company to ensure that compliance is transparent, properly monitored, and built on accountability. In this framework, companies can build out a compliance structure that is centralized and includes regional and local compliance functions that fully integrated. By adopting the new COSO framework, a company is sending an important message to stakeholders that managing compliance risk is a high-priority to the company.

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

COMM_a5
15. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update, 10 Nov 2017; available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com
)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
.
 
Besides imposing various cyber security measures to protect “covered defense information,” DFARS Clause 252.204-7012(c) also requires that when a contractor or subcontractor subject to the clause discovers a cyber incident that affects a covered contractor information system or the covered defense information residing therein, or that affects the contractor’s ability to perform the requirements of the contract that are designated as operationally critical support and identified in the contract, it must report the incident within 72 hours to DoD at http://dibnet.dod.mil. Access to this page requires a DoD-approved medium assurance certificate, which will take longer than 72 hours to obtain. You should therefore have in place a cyber incident reporting plan ready to go before you experience an incident. Best practice is to not only have a plan in place, but also to conduct desktop drills involving senior managers in all potentially affected business operations to ensure the plan works.

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

COMM_a6
16. R.C. Burns: “When You Might Not Be Libre To Drink a Cuba Libre in Cuba”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
, 9 Nov 2017. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067).
 
One of the things that pops out from the State Department’s Naughty List of Cuban businesses is all the beverage companies on it, which seems odd. I mean, honestly, how much can American tourists spend on TropiCola? How much of that will wind up in the pockets of Cuban spies and the Cuban military? Is the Cuban military going to crumble when it can’t sell TropiCola to American tourists?
 
On the list are Najita (orange soda), Cachito (sparkling lemonade), TropiCola, and rum producers Ron Caney and Ron Varadero. Havana Club Rum, the gold standard of Cuban rum, is, inexplicably, not on the Naughty List.
 
The relevant regulation here is the new section 515.209 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACR”) which forbids “direct financial transactions” with any entity on the Naughty List. But don’t pin your hopes on the word “direct” because we’re talking OFAC here and we’re in the Upside Down where direct actually means indirect. When you buy TropiCola from a street vendor, that’s a direct transaction in the Upside Down where OFAC lives and an indirect transaction in the normal world.
 
For purposes of this prohibition, a person engages in a direct financial transaction by acting as the originator on a transfer of funds whose ultimate beneficiary is an entity or subentity on the State Department’s List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List”) …, including a transaction by wire transfer, credit card, check, or payment of cash.
 
So, when you give cash to bar in Havana to purchase a Cuba Libre made with Caney Rum and TropiCola, the ultimate beneficiaries are, arguably, TropiCola and Ron Caney. Perhaps an argument could be made that since both companies have already been paid, they aren’t the ultimate beneficiary of your payment to the bar. But, if section 515.209 of the CACR only applies when you buy Tropicola or Caney Rum directly from the bottler, why include them on the Naughty List? What U.S. tourist will ever deal directly with the bottler?
 
And since we made a trip to the Upside Down, I am compelled to add one thing: #JusticeForBob (spoiler alert!).

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a217. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings; 111 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 29 New Jobs

(Source: Editor)  
 
Published every Monday or first business day of the week. Please, send job openings in the following format to jobs@fullcirclecompliance.eu.
 
* COMPANY; LOCATION; POSITION TITLE (WEBLINK); CONTACT INFORMATION; REQUISITION ID
 


#
” New or amended listing this week (
29
new jobs)

* Aerojet Rocketdyne; Huntsville, AL, or Camden, AR; 
Senior International Trade and Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 12620

*
Airbus; Barajas, Spain;
Export Control Officer
;
#
Arconic; Torrance, CA; Global Trade Compliance Manager – Import
#
ASM; Phoenix, AZ; Senior Manager Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 7421

* Autodesk; San Rafael CA; 
Export Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 17WD24183

*
BAE Systems; Nashua, NH: Import Export Analyst II; Requisition ID: 26285BR

* Baylor University; Waco, TX;
Manager/Director of Export Compliance; Vacancy ID S030428
# Boecore; Colorado Springs; 
Export Compliance/Contracts Support
; Julie Perkins, 719-465-5341; Requisition 8289



Boeing; Multiple Locations;
Trade Control Specialist

1700011280


Boeing; Multiple Locations;
Trade Control Specialist

1700012448

* DynCorp International; Springfield, VA;
Logistics Analyst Senior (ITAR/CCI Officer) 


* Expeditors; Sunnyvale CA;
Customs Compliance Specialist
* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; Trade Compliance Specialist;
info@exportsolutionsinc.com

* EY; Belgium; 
Senior Consultant, Global Trade; Requisition ID: BEL000PT

* FLIR;
Wilsonville, OR/Billerica, MA; 
Senior Director, Dual-Use Licensing 
* FLIR; Billerica, MA;
International Export/Import Analyst 

* Fluke; Everett, WA; 
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: FLU005544

# General Atomics; San Diego, CA; Import Export Administrator
*
 
General Atomics; San Diego, CA; Sr. Director of Import/Export Compliance; Job ID: 13892BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
International Contracts Manager; Requisition ID: 14362BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Senior Import Export Administrator; Requisition ID: 14438BR

* General Atomics; Huntsville, AL;
Experienced Contracts Manager / Huntsville; Requisition ID: 
13018BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Contract Administrator / International;
Requisition ID: 13449BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Experienced FMS International Contracts Administrator; Requisition ID: 14721BR



General Dynamics Land Systems; Sterling Heights, MI; Licensing Officer
; Requisition IDSHC-LC-17-20056

* General Dynamics Mission Systems; Scottsdale, Arizona;
Senior Contracts Manager; Requisition ID: 
2017-27442

* General Dynamics Mission Systems; Richardson, Texas;
Senior Contracts Professional; Requisition ID: 
2017-27389

# Geokinetics; Houston, TX;
Global Trade Compliance & Logistics Manager;

* George Washington University; Washington DC; 
Research Compliance Officer, Export Control
; Requisition ID: PI97906765

* Georgia Institute of Technology; Atlanta, GA; Research Associate I; Requisition ID: PVA37002

* Georgia Institute of Technology; Atlanta, GA; Research Associate II; Requisition ID: PVA37001 


Harris Corporation; Clifton, New Jersey;
Trade Compliance Analyst
;
lsolomon@harris.com
; Requisition ID: ES20171608-20394

* Harris Corporation; Rochester, NY;
Technical Export Compliance Specialist; Job ID: CS20172308-20513

* Henderson Group Unlimited; Inc; Washington, DC; 
Process Improvement Mgr
* Henderson Group Unlimited; Inc; Washington, DC; 
Defense Control Analyst

* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; Washington, DC; 
Compliance Analyst;

* Johnson and Johnson; Skillman, NJ;
Export Trade Compliance Lead
* Lam Research; Fremont, CA;
Director, Foreign Trade, Export, and ITAR
* Lam Research; Fremont, CA;
Trade Classification Analyst

* Lennox International; Richardson, TX; 
Manager, Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2017-11661
* Livingston International; El Segundo, CA;
Research Consultant – ECCN Classification
* Livingston International; Taylor, Michigan;
Manager, Service Delivery
* Livingston International; El Segundo, CA;
ECCN Classification;
* Livingston International; El Segundo, CA;
HTS Classification;

* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX;
International Trade Compliance Export Advisor; Requisition ID: 402827BR

* Lockheed Martin; Grand Prairie, TX; 
International Trade Compliance Senior Manager; Requisition ID: 405533BR
* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX;
Aeronautics International Trade Compliance Senior Manager; Requisition ID: 407329BR
* Lockheed Martin; Manassas, VA;
International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 399617BR
* Lockheed Martin; Shelton, CT;
International Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 403295BR

* Lockheed Martin; Ft Worth, TX; 
Senior Regulatory Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 
406664BR

* Lockheed Martin; Ft Worth, Texas;
International Trade Compliance Engineer; Requisition ID: 
411049BR_1

* Lockheed Martin; Orlando, FL;
International Trade Compliance Engineer; Requisition ID: 
411049BR_2

* Lutron; Coopersburg, PA;
Trade Manager-Export; Requisition ID: 2926
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 16000DYY
* Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN; 
Global Trade Supply Chain Director; Requisition ID: 17000FU4
* Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN; 
Global Trade Compliance Director; Requisition ID: 17000FC1

* Medtronic; Wash DC;
Global Trade Lawyer;
stacy.m.johnson@medtronic.com; Requisition ID: 170002ON

* Meggitt PLC; Simi Valley, CA;
Trade Compliance Officer

* Meggit PLC; San Diego, CA; 
Trade Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: 28255

* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Gaithersburg, MD;
Operations Research Analyst; Vacancy Number: NISTLP-2017-0003

* NetApp; Vienna, VA;
Industrial Security Program Officer;

# Nortek Security & Control; Carlsbad, CA;
Global Logistics & Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: GLOBA01150
* North Dakota State University; Fargo, ND;
Director for Research Integrity Compliance; Requisition ID: 1700372

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2; Requisition ID: 17014690
* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 3; Requisition ID: 17020346

* Northrop Grumman; Rolling Meadows, IL;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition: 17015695
* Northrop Grumman; San Diego, CA; 
Reg Compliance Analyst 3/4; Requisition ID: 17016952
# Orbital ATK; Mesa, AZ; 
International Trade Compliance Sr. Analyst
; Jonathan Yeomans; Requisition ID: 41622

# Orbital ATK; Mesa, AZ; 
International Trade Compliance Analyst;
Jonathan Yeomans; Requisition ID 42250

* OSI Optoelectronics; Hawthorne, CA;
Manager, Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 12235; or contact 
Kim Butcher, Senior Talent Acquisition Partner;

* Raytheon; Andover, MA; 
Global Trade Principal Advisor/Manager; Requisition ID: 103111BR

* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA;
Global Trade Manager; Requisition ID: 
97898BR
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA;
Global Trade Authorization Owner; Requisition ID: 100859BR
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA;
Principal Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 102832BR

Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; 
Sr. Regulatory Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 101593BR

* Raytheon; Tucson, AZ;
Export Compliance – Agreements Authorization Owner; Requisition ID: 99909BR
* Raytheon; McKinney, TX;
Principal Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 101234BR
# SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
;  
Danielle.Cannata@sabic.com
; Requisition ID: 8411BR
* Science and Engineering Services, LLC (SES); Huntsville, AL; 
Trade Compliance Administrator; OR: Contact 
julia.lang@ses-i.com
* Science and Engineering Services, LLC (SES); Huntsville, AL; 
Technical Writer II/ Trade Compliance
OR: Contact  
julia.lang@ses-i.com

# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Minneapolis, MN; 
Global Trade Compliance Manager;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, MA;
Director, Global Trade Compliance;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Hillsboro, OR;
Trade Compliance Analyst;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Oakwood, OH;
Import/Export Coordinator;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Tokyo, Japan;
Import/Export Manager;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Shanghai, China; 
Compliance Director — China/APAC;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Scotts Valley, CA; 
Import/Export Compliance and Purchasing;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Yokohama, Japan;
Compliance Specialist;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, MA; 
Government Contracts Specialist;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; West Pam Beach, FL;
Government Contracts Specialist;
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Bannockburn, IL;
Government Contracts Specialist;
#
 Thermo Fisher Scientific; Sunnyvale, CA; Government Contracts Specialist; 
# Thermo Fisher Scientific; Madison, WI;
Government Contracts Specialist;
#
 Thermo Fisher Scientific; Minneapolis, MN; Global Trade Compliance Manager;

* Ultra Electronics; Loudwater, United Kingdom;
International Trade Manager;

# United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Pheonix, AZ;
Senior Manager, International Trade Compliance;
Requisition ID: 54860BR
#
United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Windsor Locks, CT;
ITC Generalist, Operations and Licensing
; Requisition ID: 55641BR
#
United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Everett, WA; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 52787BR
#
United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Westford, MA;
International Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 54366BR
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Chula Vista, CA;
International Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 54684BR
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Foley, AL; 
ITC Site Lead
; Requisition ID: 54820BR
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Troy, OH; 
Director, International Trade Compliance
;
Requisition ID: 53693BR

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Westford, MA;
Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 54366BR

* The University of Georgia; Athens, GA; 
Director of the Center for International Trade & Security; Requisition ID: 2017_00504F

* Vigilant; Remote Opportunity; 
Classification Specialist

* Vigilant; Bhudapest, Hungary;
Jr. Compliance Specialist;

* Vigilant; Negotiable Location, USA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst;

* Varian Medical Systems; Palo Alto, CA, Washington, D.C., or Atlanta, GA; 
Export/Sanctions Compliance Analyst; Req ID 12270BR

* Varian Medical Systems; Palo Alto, CA, Washington, D.C., or Atlanta, GA;  
Export/Sanctions Counsel; eq ID 12271BR

* Vista Outdoor; Overland Park, KS;
Import Specialist; Requisition ID: R0002750 or contact
holly.greenwood@vistaoutdoor.com
# Vista Outdoor; Olathe, KS;
Global Logistics Manager
# Vista Outdoor; Overland Park, KS;
Supply Chain Analyst;

* Wurth Industry of North America; Sanford, FL; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 473-720

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

TECEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

TEC_a118. ECTI Presents “Advanced Encryption Classification: Learning by Doing,” Webinar, 6 Dec

(Source: Danielle McClellan, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com)
 
* What: Advanced Encryption Classification: Learning by Doing
* When: December 6, 2017; 1:00 p.m. (EST)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Felice Laird
* Register: Here or Danielle McClellan, 540-433-3977, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

 

* Louis D. Brandeis (Louis Dembitz Brandeis; 13 Nov 1856 – 5 Oct 1941; was an American lawyer and associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.)
  – “If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.”
 
* Robert Louis Stevenson (Robert Louis Balfour Stevenson; 13 Nov 1850 – 3 Dec 1894; was a British novelist, poet, essayist, and travel writer. His most famous works are Treasure Island, Kidnapped, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and A Child’s Garden of Verses.)
  – “Don’t judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant.”
 
Monday is pun day.
 
Q. What’s the difference between Prince Charles and a Frisbee?
A. One is heir to the throne, and the other is thrown in the air.
  — Alex Jarvis, St. Cloud, Minnesota

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

EN_a320
. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  Changes to applicable regulations are listed below.
 
*
ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS
: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm. 
 
*
CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 28 Sep 2017: 82 FR 45366-45408: Changes to the In-Bond Process [Effective Date: 27 Nov 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 cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary 
here
.)


EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR)
: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774

  – Last Amendment: 9 Nov 2017: 82 FR 51983-51986: Amendments to Implement United States Policy Toward Cuba

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 13 Nov 2017: 82 FR 52209-52210: Removal of Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions Regulations

 
*
FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR)
: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment:
20 Sep 2017:
 
82 FR 43842-43844
: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Filing Requirements; Correction
 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
here.
  – The latest edition (20 Sep 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, Census/AES guidance, and to many errors contained in the official text. 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: 20 Oct 2017: Harmonized System Update 1707, containing 27,291 ABI records and 5,164 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.
  – Last Amendment: 30 Aug 2017: 82 FR 41172-41173: Temporary Modification of Category XI of the United States Munitions List
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 1 Nov 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 800 footnotes containing amendment histories, 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_a0321. 
Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, John Bartlett. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 8,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.

* CAVEAT: The contents of this newsletter cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.

* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top