;

18-0108 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-0108 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 8 January 2018

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

  1. Commerce Amends 15 CFR Part 6, Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation 
  2. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Corrects Errors Concerning ECCNs 0D606, 0E606, and 8A609 
  3. DHS/CBP Extends Collection of Information Concerning CBP Form 1651-0100, “Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred” 
  4. DHS/CBP Extends Collection of Information Concerning CBP Form 3311, “Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products” 
  5. DHS/CBP Extends Collection of Information Concerning CBP Form 4315, “Application for Allowance in Duties” 
  6. Treasury Publishes List of Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: Green Lakes Dredge & Dock Company LLC of Oak Brook, IL, to Pay $37,000 to Settle Alleged Antiboycott Violations
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. Arab News: “Saudi Customs Launches Approved Economic Operator Program”
  2. Reuters: “Exclusive: Trump to Call on Pentagon, Diplomats to Play Bigger Role on Arms Sales”
  1. C.T. Cherniak: “Canada Has Many Export Controls/Economic Sanctions Lists”
  2. D. Kimball-Stanley: “3-D Guns May Be Headed to the Supreme Court: An Update”
  3. J. Reeves: “ATF Revokes Obsolete Guidance Documents”
  4. R. Marshall, E. Harding & C. Lucy: “DOJ Settlement Sets Forth Best Practices for Protecting Sensitive Data for Government Contractors and Information Technology Companies”
  5. WorldECR Releases Report on Sanctions, Export Control, and Compliance
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 159 Jobs Posted, Including 32 New Jobs
  1. Full Circle Compliance and the Netherlands Defense Academy Will Present “Winter School at the Castle”, 5-9 Feb 2018 in Breda, the Netherlands
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (8 Dec 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (8 Jan 2018), FACR/OFAC (28 Dec 2017), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (1 Jan 2018), ITAR (3 Jan 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. 
Commerce Announces Annual Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments

(Source: Federal Register, 8 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 706-709: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation
 
* AGENCY: Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This final rule is being issued to adjust for inflation each civil monetary penalty (CMP) provided by law within the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Commerce (Department of Commerce). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, required the head of each agency to adjust for inflation its CMP levels in effect as of November 2, 2015, under a revised methodology that was effective for 2016 which provided for initial catch up adjustments for inflation in 2016, and requires adjustments for inflation to CMPs under a revised methodology for each year thereafter.
The 2017 adjustments for inflation to CMPs to the Department of Commerce’s CMPs were published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2016 and became effective January 15, 2017. The revised annual methodology provides for the improvement of the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect. Agencies’ annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs shall take effect not later than January 15. The Department of Commerce’s 2018 adjustments for inflation to CMPs apply only to CMPs with a dollar amount, and will not apply to CMPs written as functions of violations. The Department of Commerce’s 2018 adjustments for inflation to CMPs apply only to those CMPs, including those whose associated violation predated such adjustment, which are assessed by the Department of Commerce after the effective date of the new CMP level.
* DATES: This rule is effective January 15, 2018.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Kunze, Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Director for Financial Management, Office of Financial Management, at (202) 482-1207, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room D200, Washington, DC 20230. The Department of Commerce’s Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation are available for downloading from the Department of Commerce, Office of Financial Management’s website. …
 
PART 6 – CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION

   § 6.1 Definitions.  …
   § 6.2 Purpose and scope.  …
   § 6.3 Adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties. …
   § 6.4 Effective date of adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties. …
   § 6.5 Subsequent annual adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties. … 

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

EXIM_a2

2. 
Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Corrects Errors Concerning ECCNs 0D606, 0E606, and 8A609

(Source:
Federal Register, 8 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 709-711: Revisions, Clarifications, and Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations; Correction
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments. …
* DATES: This rule is effective
January 8, 2018. …
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … On December 27, 2017, BIS published a final rule, Revisions, Clarifications, and Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations (82 FR 61153) (the December 27 rule), which made corrections to certain provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), including the Commerce Control List (part 774 of the EAR) (CCL). The corrections were editorial in nature and did not affect license requirements. In this final rule, BIS is amending ECCNs 0D606 and 0E606 by reinstating original text that was erroneously replaced with the text for ECCNs 0D614 and 0E614, respectively, in the December 27 rule. In addition, this rule reinstates paragraph (2) of the Special Conditions for STA in ECCN 8A609.
 
Part 774
 
  ECCNs 0D606 and 0E606: The December 27 rule amended ECCN subparagraphs 0D606.a and 0E606.a to include references to ECCNs 0B606 and 0C606. During drafting, the License Requirements section and the text following the revised subparagraphs for both ECCNs was exchanged with the text for ECCNs 0D614 and 0E614, respectively. In order to follow the guidelines of the original preamble, this correction to the December 27 rule restores the original License Requirements section and the text of ECCNs 0D606 and 0E606 following subparagraph .a in both ECCNs. In addition, this rule replaces the incorrect reference to 0D606 with 0E606 in the Special Conditions for STA of ECCN 0E606.
  ECCN 8A609: The December 27 rule amended ECCN 8A609 by revising the title reference in these ECCNs to match the current title of Sec.  740.20(g) and in doing so inadvertently removed paragraph (2) of the Special Conditions for STA. This rule restores paragraph (2) of the Special Conditions for STA in ECCN 8A609. …
 
    Dated: January 2, 2018.

Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.

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

EXIM_a3

3. 
DHS/CBP Extends Collection of Information Concerning CBP Form
1651-0100
, “
Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred

(Source: Federal Register, 8 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 826-827: Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred
 
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
* SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than March 9, 2018) to be assured of consideration.
* ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0100 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
 
(1) Email. Submit comments to: CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
 
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
 
Overview of This Information Collection
 
 
– Title: Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred.
 
– OMB Number: 1651-0100.
 
– Form Number: CBP Form 4609.
 
– Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.
 
– Type of Review: Extension (without change).
 
– Abstract: CBP Form 4609, Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred, is completed and filed with the CBP FP&F Officer designated in the notice of claim by individuals who have been found to be in violation of one or more provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, or other laws administered by CBP. Persons who violate the Tariff Act are entitled to file a petition seeking mitigation of any statutory penalty imposed or remission of a statutory forfeiture incurred. This petition is submitted on CBP Form 4609. The information provided on this form is used by CBP personnel as a basis for granting relief from forfeiture or penalty. CBP Form 4609 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1618 and provided for by 19 CFR 171.1. It is accessible here.  …
 
 
 
Dated: January 2, 2018.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

EXIM_a4

4. 
DHS/CBP Extends Collection of Information Concerning CBP Form 3311, “Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products”

(Source: Federal Register, 8 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 827-828: Agency Information Collection Activities: Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products
 
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
* SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than February 7, 2018) to be assured of consideration.
* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
dhsdeskofficer@omb.eop.gov. …
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 48839) on October 20, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
 
Overview of This Information Collection
 
  – Title: Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0011.
  – Form Number: CBP Form 3311.
  – Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected on Form 3311.
  – Type of Review: Extension (with no change).
  – Abstract: CBP Form 3311, Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products, is used by importers and their agents when duty-free entry is claimed for a shipment of returned American products under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. This form serves as a declaration that the goods are American made and that they have not been advanced in value or improved in condition while abroad; were not previously entered under a temporary importation under bond provision; and that drawback was never claimed and/or paid. CBP Form 3311 is authorized by 19 CFR 10.1, 10.66, 10.67, 12.41, 123.4, and 143.23 and is accessible
here. …
 
  Dated: January 2, 2018.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

EXIM_a5

5. 
DHS/CBP Extends Collection of Information Concerning CBP Form 4315, “Application for Allowance in Duties”

(Source:
Federal Register
, 8 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 824: Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Allowance in Duties
 
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
* SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than March 9, 2018) to be assured of consideration.
* ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0007 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
  (1) Email. Submit comments to:
CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
  (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177. …
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
 
Overview of This Information Collection
 
 – Title: Application for Allowance in Duties.
 – OMB Number: 1651-0007.
 – Form Number: CBP Form 4315.
 – Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to Form 4315.
 – Type of Review: Extension (without change).
 – Abstract: CBP Form 4315, “Application for Allowance in Duties,” is submitted to CBP in instances of claims of damaged or defective imported merchandise on which an allowance in duty is made in the liquidation of the entry. The information on this form is used to substantiate an importer’s claim for such duty allowances. CBP Form 4315 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1506 and provided for by 19 CFR 158.11, 158.13 and 158.23. This form is accessible
here. …
 
  Dated: January 2, 2018.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

EXIM_a6

6. 
Treasury Publishes List of Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott
 

(Source:
Federal Register
, 8 Jan 2018.)
 
83 FR 966: List of Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott
 
 
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of
 
countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
 
On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
 
 
Iraq
 
Kuwait
 
Lebanon
 
Libya
 
Qatar
 
Saudi Arabia
 
Syria
 
United Arab Emirates
 
Yemen
 
 
Dated: January 2, 2018.
Douglas Poms, International Tax Counsel, (Tax Policy).

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a17. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register

 
* State; Designations as Global Terrorists [Publication Date: 9 Jan 2018.]:
  – Abukar Ali Adan, aka Abukar Ali Aden, aka Sheikh Abukar, aka Ibrahim Afghan
  – Muhammad al-Ghazali, aka Rashid, aka Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Ghazali, aka Abu Hisham Mawari, aka Abu Hisham al-Mawari, aka Abu Sa’id, aka Abu Faris
  – Wanas al-Faqih 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a28. 

Commerce/BIS: Green Lakes Dredge & Dock Company LLC of Oak Brook, IL, to Pay $37,000 to Settle Alleged Antiboycott Violations

(Source:
Commerce/BIS, 8 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
             
* Respondent: Green Lakes Dredge & Dock Company LLC (“Green Lakes”)
* Case No: 16-04
* Charges:
  – 3 Violations of 15 CFR 760.2(a), Refusal to do business
  – 5 Violations of 15 CFR 760.5, Failing to Report the Receipt of a Request to Engage in a Restrictive Trade Practice or Foreign Boycott Against a Country Friendly to the United States
* Fine or Civil Settlement: BIS and Great Lakes have entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 766.18(a). The following is ordered:
  – Civil Penalty of $37,000
* Debarred or Suspended from Export Transactions: Not if penalty is paid as agreed.
* Date of Order: 21 Dec 2017. 

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

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a1
10. Arab News: “Saudi Customs Launches Approved Economic Operator Program”

(Source: Arab News, 2 Jan 2018.)
 
Saudi Customs has launched the Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) program to enhance partnership with the private sector and encourage teamwork to facilitate trade and customs procedures.
 
The AEO program will improve trade procedures for exporters, importers, customs trustees, carriers, shipping agents and other trade facilities in the logistics sector. The program will facilitate trade between the Kingdom and other countries. It also has procedural and priority advantages in all customs procedures.
 
The program also offers security advantages, such as minimizing spot checks and sample analysis. General advantages of the AEO also include benefiting from the features offered by similar programs in other countries through mutual recognition, and the possibility of using the AEO logo in marketing.
 
Moreover, there will be a special account for the trading facility to deal with any challenges that face export and import operations.
 
Saudi Customs invited relevant parties to register through its website. Registration conditions stipulate that the facility should have a suitable three-year record for customs obligations before applying. They also stipulate the availability of suitable administrative and financial rules which allow for imposing proper customs controls on shipping documents, and a proven financial capability of the facility.
 
Saudi Customs declared that there is no time limit for the facility which has already been approved as an authorized economic operator, but the suitability criteria will continuously be monitored. Re-checking will be done at least once every five years or according to the results of continuous assessment and monitoring.
 
The launch of the Saudi AEO follows the implementation of a 24-hour customs clearance policy, which has been successful in many maritime customs outlets in its first stage. The time needed to finalize customs procedures has been reduced from 14 days to less than 48 hours.

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

NWS_a2
11. Reuters: “Exclusive: Trump to Call on Pentagon, Diplomats to Play Bigger Role on Arms Sales”

(Source: Reuters, 8 Jan 2018.)
 
The Trump administration is nearing completion of a new “Buy American” plan that calls for U.S. military attaches and diplomats to help drum up billions of dollars more in business overseas for the American weapons industry, going beyond the assistance they currently provide, U.S. officials said.
 
President Donald Trump as early as February is expected to announce a “whole of government” effort to ease export rules on purchases by foreign countries of U.S.-made military equipment, from fighter jets and drones to warships and artillery, according to people familiar with the plan.
 
Trump is seeking to fulfill a 2016 election campaign promise to create jobs in the United States by selling more goods and services abroad to bring down the U.S. trade deficit from a six-year high of $50 billion.
 
The administration is also under pressure from U.S. defense contractors facing growing competition from foreign rivals such as China and Russia. But any loosening of the restrictions on weapons sales would be in defiance of human rights and arms control advocates who said there was too great a risk of fueling violence in regions such as the Middle East and South Asia or arms being diverted to be used in terrorist attacks.
 
Besides greater use of a network of military and commercial attaches already stationed at U.S. embassies in foreign capitals, senior officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said another thrust of the plan will be to set in motion a realignment of the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). It is a central policy governing arms exports since 1976 and has not been fully revamped in more than three decades.
 
This expanded government effort on behalf of American arms makers, together with looser restrictions on weapons exports and more favorable treatment of sales to non-NATO allies and partners, could bring additional billions of dollars in deals and more jobs, a senior U.S. official said, without providing specifics.
 
The strategy of having the Pentagon and the U.S. State Department take a more active role in securing foreign arms deals could especially benefit major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co.
 
  “We want to see those guys, the commercial and military attaches, unfettered to be salesmen for this stuff, to be promoters,” said the senior administration official, who is close to the internal deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity.
 
A State Department official, asked to confirm details of the coming new policy, said the revamped approach “gives our partners a greater capacity to help share the burden of international security, benefits the defense industrial base and will provide more good jobs for American workers.”
 
The White House and Pentagon declined official comment.
 
Defense industry officials and lobbyists have privately welcomed what they expect will be a more sales-friendly approach.  
It is unclear how deeply the diplomats and military officers overseas will delve into dealmaking and what guidelines will be established, said officials in the administration.
 
Trump, a Republican, has the legal authority to direct government embassy “security assistance officers,” both military personnel and civilians, to do more to help drive arms sales.  
Administration officials see this group, which already has duties such as managing military aid overseas and providing information to foreign governments for buying U.S. arms, as underutilized by previous presidents.
 
‘Back Seat’ For Human Rights?
 
One national security analyst said that easing export restrictions to allow defense contractors to reap greater profits internationally would increase the danger of top-of-the-line U.S. weapons going to governments with poor human rights records or being used by militants.
 
  “This administration has demonstrated from the very beginning that human rights have taken a back seat to economic concerns,” said Rachel Stohl, director of the conventional defense program at the Stimson Center in Washington. “And the short-sightedness of a new arms export policy could have serious long-term implications.”
 
The administration officials said human rights considerations would remain part of the formula for arms sales decisions. But they said such reviews would now afford greater weight than before to whether a deal would be good for the U.S. economy and strengthen America’s defense industrial base, in which case red tape would be cut accordingly.
 
Rules to make it easier to sell U.S.-made military drones overseas and compete against fast-growing Chinese and Israeli rivals are also expected to be in the Trump plan, officials said.
 
Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, also sought to make it easier to sell to America’s most trusted allies but in a more cautious approach that his administration billed as a way to boost American business while keeping strict controls against more dangerous arms proliferation. Foreign weapons sales soared during his tenure, with the United States retaining its position as the world’s top arms supplier.
 
Shares of the five biggest U.S. defense contractors, including Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon Co, General Dynamics Corp and Northrop Grumman have more than tripled over the last five years and currently trade at or near all-time highs.
 
Foreign military sales in fiscal 2017, comprising much of Trump’s first year in office and the final months of Obama’s term, climbed to $42 billion, compared to $31 billion in the prior year, according to the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
 
The Trump administration has already moved forward on several controversial sales. Those include a push for $7 billion in precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia despite concerns they have contributed to civilian deaths in the Saudi campaign in Yemen’s civil war and the unblocking of $3 billion in arms to Bahrain, which was also held up by human rights concerns under Obama.
 
Similar concerns have been raised over the administration’s preparations to make it easier for American gun makers to sell small arms, including assault rifles and ammunition, to foreign buyers.
 
A draft of the new policy proposals recently finished by inter-agency teams coordinated by Trump’s National Security Council must now be approved by a select group of senior cabinet members before being sent to his desk, the government sources said.
 
Once Trump announces an extensive framework of the plan, there will be a 60-day public comment period. After that, the administration is expected to unveil further details. Some of the changes are expected to take the form of what is formally known as a presidential “National Security Decision Directive,” two of the sources said.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a01
12. C.T. Cherniak: “Canada Has Many Export Controls/Economic Sanctions Lists”

(Source: Shoshannah Wagenberg, shoshannah@lexsage.com, 5 Jan 2018.)
 
* Author: Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Esq, LexSage PC, cyndee@lexsage.com, 416-307-4168
 
Canada has made many lists and you may have to look at more than one list before exporting goods.  Which lists you must look at depends upon the destination country, the identity of buyer (including related parties), what specifically you are selling to your buyer (the good and its component parts), and the industry in which your buyer operates.  Most of these lists are made by the Governor in Council (that is, the individuals are appointed by the Governor General of Canada made on the advice of Cabinet).  That means that the lists can be changed by the Governor in Council without Parliamentary and Senate approval.  Great! – many lists that can change – this is not very business-friendly.
 
You should become familiar with Canada’s export controls and economic sanctions laws and the various lists.  We have provided a chart of the lists on our website.

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

COMM_a2
13. D. Kimball-Stanley: “3-D Guns May Be Headed to the Supreme Court: An Update”

(Source: Lawfare Blog,
 5 Jan 2018.)
 
* Author: David Kimball-Stanley is a third-year student at Harvard Law School. Prior to law school, he worked for five years in the New York City Council.
 
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider a 
cert petition
 in Defense Distributed v. State Department as part of its conference today. A little over a year ago, I wrote a 
post
 for Lawfare detailing the case, which arose out of the federal government’s attempts to regulate the practice of 3-D printing firearms. This post will provide an update on where the case stands now as the Court considers whether it will step in.
 
Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an 
article
 detailing the rise of so-called “ghost guns”-untraceable firearms made through a carve-out in federal law focused on hobbyists. Today, making a homemade gun is far easier than it used to be, with toolkits available online and YouTube instructional videos to guide novices. Critically, homemade guns are not required to have serial numbers, which makes it easier to evade law enforcement. According to the Wall Street Journal, the guns are a growing concern for law enforcement, particularly in states like California, where strict gun regulation makes getting out-of-state guns difficult. Some of these guns can be finished using 3-D printers, further reducing the expertise required to make a firearm at home. That is where Defense Distributed v. State comes in.
 
My previous post outlines the facts in more detail, but briefly: Defense Distributed is a Texas based non-profit committed to defending gun rights through digital manufacturing. This case arose after the State Department instructed Defense Distributed to remove several files from its website, saying that they were controlled by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and that they had been posted without required prior authorization. The files in question would have allowed users to 3-D print, for example, parts for making an AR-15 rifle. Defense Distributed, along with co-plaintiff the Second Amendment Foundation, challenged the State Department’s regulation as a violation of their First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights.
 
When we last left the case, a Fifth Circuit panel had affirmed a Texas federal district court’s rejection of a motion for preliminary injunction against the State Department, and the plaintiffs had 
filed
 a motion for rehearing en banc. Since then, that motion has been 
denied
, and plaintiffs have 
filed
 a petition for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court. The government has 
filed
a brief in opposition to granting certiorari, and plaintiffs have 
filed
 a reply brief. The case was distributed for the Supreme Court conference on Jan. 5.
 
As framed in the cert petition, the case before the Supreme Court is less about constitutional rights and more about the approach taken by the Fifth Circuit in denying the preliminary injunction. Under the traditional standard for a preliminary injunction, in order to succeed a moving party must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court decision by assessing if the district court had abused its discretion ruling that plaintiffs failed two of the non-merits prongs: the balance of harms and public interest requirements. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that because the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding those prongs, it did not need to reach the merits. One member of the panel, Judge Edith Jones, dissented and criticized the majority for assuming the merits could not outweigh the other prongs.
 
The petitioners’ cert petition focuses on this analysis in its questions presented, with two proposed questions about the application of the preliminary injunction standard: The first is “Whether a court weighing a preliminary injunction must consider a First Amendment plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits,” and the second is “Whether it is always in the public interest to follow constitutional requirements.” The third deals with the legal issue at the heart of the case: “Whether the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, 22 U.S.C. § 2278, et seq., and its implementing International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), 22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130, may be applied as a prior restraint on public speech.”
 
The bulk of the briefs in support and opposition to certiorari concerns the analytical framework of the circuit panel. The petitioners contend that ignoring the question of the merits altogether ignores Supreme Court precedent, as well as that of 10 circuit courts. The petitioners cite cases underscoring the first prong’s importance, calling it the “linchpin” of the preliminary injunction analysis, and “virtually indispensable.” Relatedly, the petitioners argue that when a constitutional right is at issue, the public interest will always be served by enforcing the right. They contend that, “once constitutional rights are at stake, at least five circuits would not consider other public interests.” Finally, addressing the merits, the petitioners’ brief compares Defense Distributed’s files to the Pentagon Papers, asking the court to reject any conflation of speech and “exports.”
The government largely dodges the question of the merits, arguing that the point of the lower court’s decision is that no matter what outcome on the merits, a preliminary injunction would be improper. The government brief emphasized that preliminary injunctions are extraordinary tools, pointing to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council to support the Fifth Circuit panel’s approach. In that case, the Supreme Court reversed a preliminary injunction despite agreeing the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits, because the public interest and balance of the equities weighed decisively against an injunction. According to the government, the petitioners could find no case “holding that analysis of the merits of a First Amendment challenge is necessary even if a court concludes that the balance of equities and the public interest would weigh against injunctive relief for independent reasons in any event.” Additionally, the government argued that requiring an analysis of the merits would violate old principles of judicial restraint, which counsel that courts should refrain from answering constitutional questions if possible.

 
If the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case, it would confront frontier issues of what kind of protection computer files that create tangible objects receive. If they decline, the litigation may continue in Texas district court, where the constitutional issues may prove unavoidable. 

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

COMM_a3
14. J. Reeves: “ATF Revokes Obsolete Guidance Documents”

(Source: Reeves & Dola LLP Alert, 3 Jan 2018; available by subscription from jreeves@reevesdola.com.)
 
* Authors: Johanna Reeves, Esq., jreeves@jreeveslaw.com. Of Reeves & Dola LLP, +1 202-683-4200.
 
Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 13777 and Attorney General Sessions’ memo prohibiting certain guidance documents, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently published Ruling 2017-1 Revoking Certain Guidance Documents. The ATF documents are part of the Attorney General’s rescission of 25 guidance documents.
 
The rescinded ATF documents include three rulings, one procedure and two industry circulars determined to be obsolete because of statutory or regulatory amendments, or because of changes to particular forms. The specific documents are as follows:
 
(1) ATF Rul. 2004-1. Revoked as obsolete pursuant to the 2012 amendments to the regulatory definition of “State of residence” in 27 C.F.R. 478.11.
 
ATF Rul. 2004-1, originally published on March 22, 2004, addressed how “nonimmigrant aliens” may satisfy the Gun Control Act (GCA) state of residence requirement to purchase or acquire a firearm. The ruling cited the existing ATF regulations that imposed a 90-day state residency requirement on “aliens” in 27 C.F.R. 478.11. This 90-day requirement in the definition of “State of residence” was applicable only to aliens and differed from all other individuals, who were deemed to reside in a state if “he or she is present in a State with the intention of making a home in that State.”
 
In 2012, ATF amended its regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.11 to remove the 90-day state residency requirement that applied only to aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm. According to the Department of Justice, ATF’s imposition of two different constructions for state of residence – one that applied to U.S. citizens and one that applied to lawfully present aliens – was not legally permissible. The amendments, published as an interim final rule on June 7, 2012, made ATF Ruling 2004-1 obsolete. “The Department [of Justice] has determined that the Gun Control Act does not permit ATF to impose a regulatory requirement that aliens lawfully present in the United States are subject to a 90-day State residency requirement when such a requirement is not applicable to U.S. citizens” (summary of interim final rule (2011R-23P), 77 Fed. Reg. 33630 (Jun. 7, 2012). More information about the 2012 regulatory amendments is in the interim final rule, published in the Federal Register at 77 Fed. Reg. 33630 (Jun. 7, 2012).
 
(2) ATF Rul. 2001-1. This ruling, published on February 2, 2001, established May 1, 2001, as the final registration deadline for individuals in possession of the Streetsweeper, Striker-12 and the USAS-12 shotguns. ATF reclassified these firearms as destructive devices under the National Firearms Act in previous ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2. This ruling is obsolete as the registration period has been closed for more than sixteen years. In an April 10, 2001 Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees, ATF explained “sufficient time has been afforded for the registration period of these destructive devices. Therefore, the Bureau has decided that May 1, 2001 will end this registration period. After that date, any unregistered Streetweeper, Striker-12, or USAS-12, will be subject to the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the [NFA], In addition, criminal penalties may also be imposed for possession of an unregistered destructive device.”
 
As the registration period ended more than sixteen years ago, ATF has determined Rul. 2001-1 obsolete and unnecessary.
 
(3) ATF Ruling 85-3 and Industry Circular 85-3. These documents were made obsolete by amendments to Section 922(b)(3) of the Gun Control Act. Section 922(b)(3) (18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)) makes it unlawful for a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector to sell or deliver any firearm to any person whom the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the state in which the licensee’s place of business is located. The statute contains two exceptions to this prohibition. One exception is the sale or delivery of a rifle or shotgun to a resident of a state other than the licensee’s place of business as long as (i) the transferee meets in person with the licensed transferor to accomplish the transfer; and (ii) the sale, delivery and receipt of the rifle or shotgun fully complies with the requirements in both states. It is important to note that the GCA places a presumption, absent evidence to the contrary, that any licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer has actual knowledge of the laws and published ordnances of both states. The second exception is for a firearm loan or rental to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
 
(4) Industry Circular 75-10 and ATF Procedure 75-4. These guidance documents were incorporated into the Application for Explosives License or Permit, Form 5400.13/16.

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

COMM_a4
15. R. Marshall, E. Harding & C. Lucy: “DOJ Settlement Sets Forth Best Practices for Protecting Sensitive Data for Government Contractors and Information Technology Companies”

(Source: Holland & Hart LLP, 5 Jan 2018.)
 
* Authors: Romaine Marshall, Esq., rcmarshall@hollandhart.com; Elizabeth (Liz) Harding, Esq., leharding@hollandhart.com; and Charles Lucy, Esq., clucy@hollandhart.com.
 
If your company sells products or services to the U.S. Department of Defense or intelligence community, you should be aware of the cybersecurity best practices set forth in the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) recent Non-Prosecution Agreement with Netcracker Technology Corporation (“Netcracker”), a U.S.-based global telecommunications software company.
 
Citing the growing cyber threat posed by foreign government security agencies and cyber criminals, the U.S. Government is leaning on its government contractors to take appropriate measures to safeguard sensitive government information stored on non-governmental networks and systems, including adopting security plans that limit the information sent to, stored in, or accessed from outside the United States. For example, effective December 31, 2017, government contractors handling sensitive federal government information must now comply not only with the cyber compliance requirements in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) 252.204-7012, but also with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Special Publication 800-171 – Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations. The DOJ’s enforcement action against Netcracker offers valuable insight into the types of enhanced cybersecurity protocols that the U.S. Government expects government contractors to adopt. Non-DOD agencies have required a lesser compliance standard since June of 2016 under Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 4.19 and 52.204-21, but non-DOD contractors can expect a migration to the tougher standards in the future.
 
On December 11, 2017, the DOJ announced its non-prosecution agreement with Netcracker, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Japan-based NEC Corp. This settlement resolved allegations that Netcracker allowed employees located in Russia and Ukraine who lacked security clearances to perform software customization and configuration services under a federal contract with the U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency (“DISA”). As a part of the settlement, Netcracker agreed to implement, and share with others in the industry, enhanced cybersecurity measures for software development, implementation, and other services to its U.S.-based clients. In 2015, Netcracker agreed to pay $11.4 million to settle related civil allegations under the False Claims Act that the company used foreign nationals without security clearances to work on a DISA contract.
 
According to the Non-Prosecution Agreement’s Statement of Facts, Netcracker worked as a subcontractor on two government contracts with DISA and allegedly allowed Netcracker personnel in Russia and Ukraine to have access to DISA information and perform software services under one of the contracts during 2008 through 2013. The software at issue was one of Netcracker’s commercial off-the-shelf (“COTS”) products. Although Netcracker had certified that all employees assigned to this project would be U.S. citizens and have a security clearance of Secret or above, Netcracker and DISA had different understandings of the term “project” and what constituted “DISA information.” The company believed it could use uncleared employees, including foreign nationals outside of the United States, to work on the DISA project as long as the employees did not have access to classified or sensitive information.
 
DOJ’s investigators determined that DISA project source code and other information was stored on a Netcracker server in Moscow and that uncleared Netcracker employees in Russia and Ukraine knew they were customizing and configuring sensitive software code for the DISA project. Netcracker’s actions not only may have violated U.S. export control laws, but also potentially made federal government networks vulnerable to foreign surveillance. According to the Statement of Facts, any DISA data sent to Russia and/or transferred over Russian networks via Netcracker’s servers were subject to the Russian System of Operative-Investigative Measures, which authorizes the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation to collect, analyze, and store both metadata and content transmitted or received on Russian telecommunication networks.
 
To avoid criminal prosecution, Netcracker agreed to create an Enhanced Security Plan for U.S.-based customers’ domestic communications infrastructure. The plan includes the following key features:
 
  – The company must appoint a Security Director approved by the DOJ who has a security clearance of at least Top Secret;
  – Netcracker must agree to keep specified data and information in the United States, and move its file storage and servers to the United States;
  – Netcracker cannot transfer or route certain sensitive data outside the United States; and
  – The company must move certain supervisory jobs, including management of employee screening, to the United States.
 
Although Netcracker appears to have avoided criminal liability in this instance, one might reasonably conclude that the costs in time and money of the resulting internal investigation and added security measures were substantial. The Netcracker matter serves as an important reminder to ensure all persons working on government defense or intelligence contracts have appropriate authorization and security clearances. Particularly where you are providing any goods or services to another private contractor, you should obtain appropriate assurances regarding (a) the U.S. person status of any persons employed by or working on behalf of the other private contractor, or (b) the licensed/authorization status under applicable export control laws of any foreign persons employed by or working on behalf of the other private contractor. As the U.S. Government has made clear in prior enforcement actions, you should take these steps even if your company is supplying the U.S. Department of Defense or intelligence community with non-classified COTS products and related services as in the Netcracker matter.

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

COMM_a5
16WorldECR Releases Report on Sanctions, Export Control, and Compliance

(Source: WorldECR Alert, 8 Jan 2018.)
 
In this unique Special Report, WorldECR speaks with senior trade compliance professionals and advisors, to bringing together their collective experience and wisdom, and asking the questions: What did we learn in 2017? and How do we prepare for 2018?
 
SANCTIONS: If it wasn’t totally clear before, the past few years have demonstrated without doubt that politicians like sanctions and embargoes. And it’s not just traditional regimes imposed on the usual suspects that have captured the headlines. Sanctions are changing and approaches to compliance with them will have to change as well.   
 
EXPORT CONTROL: While sanctions may have stolen the headlines in 2017, the ongoing and planned evolution of export control regulation under the United States ECR
initiative, the EU’s dual-use recast, and a host of standalone national changes seeking international harmonization, will continue to provide the foundations of the trade compliance challenge.
 
COMPLIANCE: The geopolitical and legislative developments of 2017 set up compliance teams for a year of juggling unpredictable and sometimes novel regulatory change. But it doesn’t stop there – as one new challenge is met, expect another to take its place.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a217. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings; 159 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 32 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 (
32 New Jobs
)

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

# AJC Logistics; Atlanta, GA; NVOCC Export Specialist;

# 
AJC Logistics; Atlanta, GA; NVOCC Export Specialist;

# Ajilon; Long Branch, NJ; Export Documentation Specialist;
* Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; Fort Worth, TX;
Manager, Customs Compliance; Requisition ID: 227402BR

# Allports Forwarding Inc.; Portland, OR; Import Entry Specialist
*
ASM; Phoenix, AZ; Senior Manager Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 7421

* BAE Systems; Nashua, NH;
Director, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 31739BR

* BAE Systems; Manassas, VA;
Director, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 31789BR

* BAE Systems; Los Angeles, CA; 
Program Manager, International and Offset; Requisition ID: 33778BR

* Baylor University; Waco, TX;
Manager/Director of Export Compliance; Vacancy ID S030428

* Bell Helicopter; Fort Worth, Texas;
Trade Compliance Specialist III;

# Boart Longyear; Salt Lake City, UT; Import Export Specialist; Requisition ID: 8284BR
* Boecore; Colorado Springs; 
Export Compliance/Contracts Support
; Julie Perkins, 719-465-5341; Requisition ID: 8289



Boeing; Multiple Locations;
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 
1700011280

#
 
Boeing; Queensland, Australia
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 
1700027720

# Boeing; St Louis, MO; Trade Control Specialist; Requisition ID: 1700011280

#
 
Boeing; Bangalore, India; 
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 
1800001047

# Boeing; St. Louis, MO; Trade Control Specialist- Mid Career; Requisition ID: 1700022214
# Boeing; Crawley, United Kingdom; Trade Compliance Project Manager – 12 months FTC; Requisition ID: 1800000286

* BMW North America; Woodcliff Lake, NJ;
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 170004RD

* Crane ChemPharma & Energy; Long Beach, CA;
Import Export Compliance Specialist;

* CSRA; San Diego, CA;
Mid-Level FMS Case Analyst; Requisition ID: RQ 3035

* CSRA; San Diego, CA;
Mid-level Case Analyst for MIDS FMS Program; Requisition ID: RQ6975
 

*
 CSRA; San Diego, CA; 
Senior Case Analyst for MIDS FMS Program
; RQ6763 

* CSRA; San Diego, CA;
Senior FMS Case Analyst; Requisition ID: 3004

* CSRA; San Diego, CA; 
Senior FMS Financial Analyst; Requisition ID: 
RQ3010

* DroneShield; W
arrenton, VA;
Export Compliance Manager

(through CyberCoders staffing agency)

* DynCorp International; San Juan, Puerto Rico

Contracts Manager Senior
;
 Requisition ID:
 
1704462

*
 DynCorp International; Tampa, FL; Foreign Disclosure Officer; Requisition ID: PR1701977

*
 DynCorp International; Fort Worth, TX; Contracts Manager Senior; Requisition ID: 1704797

# Eaton; Syracuse, NY; Global Logistics Manager; Requisition ID: 036620

# Eaton; San Luis Potosi, Mexico;
Global Trade Management Analyst; Requisition ID: 044258
# Eaton; Shanghai Shi, China;
Global Ethics and Compliance Director, APAC; Requisition ID: 039260

* EoTech Technologies; Ann Arbor, MI;
Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 092335

* Expeditors; Portland, OR;
US Export Compliance Consultant;

* Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA;
Customs Compliance Supervisor;

* Expeditors; Atlanta, GA; 
Customs Brokerage Agent


* Expeditors; Aalsmeerderbrug
, NH – Netherlands; 
Import en Export Control Medewerker

* Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Sachbearbeiter Import/ Export;
* Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom;
Customs Brokerage Clerk;
* Expeditors; Birmingham, UK;
Customs Brokerage Agent;

* Expeditors; Düsseldorf, Germany;
Sachbearbeiter Luftfracht Import;


* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; 
Trade Compliance Specialist;
info@exportsolutionsinc.com

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

* FD Associates; Tysons Corner, VA; 
Senior Export Compliance Associate;
 Send 
resume to and salary requirements to 
jobs@fdassociates.net 

* FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic;
*
 FLIR; Wilsonville, OR; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic
;

*
 FLIR; Elkridge, MD; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic
;

*
FLIR; Arlington, VA;
Senior Analyst, Licensing
* FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Senior Analyst, Licensing
;

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

*
General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Contract Administrator / International
;

Requisition ID: 13449BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Import/Export Compliance Manager / Licensing; Requisition ID: 15444BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Import/Export Compliance Manager / Operations; Requisition ID: 15371BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Internship, Import/Export, Summer 2018; Requisition ID: 15729BR
*
 General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Internship, Import/Export, Summer 2018
; Requisition ID: 15731BR 
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Experienced Contract Administrator / International; Requisition ID: 13449BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Senior Import/Export Administrator;
Requisition ID: 14438BR

* General Dynamics Ordinance and Tactical Systems; Lincoln, NE;
Contracts Administrator; Requisition ID: j29241586


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

* Georgia-Pacific; Atlanta, GA; 
Sr. Analyst, International Trade
; Requisition ID: 052010
 

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

* Harris Corporation; Rochester, NY;
Trade Compliance Specialist; Job Code: CS20172308-20510

* 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;

# Honda of America Manufacturing; Marysvile, OH; Import Specialist
* Honeywell; Bucharest, Hungary; 
Import and Export Compliance Manager; HRD12868

* Infineon Technologies; El Segundo, CA;
Senior Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 23173

* Infineon Technologies; Milpitas, CA;
Senior Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 21326

* Infineon Technologies; Shanghai, China;
Senior Import and Export Specialist; Requisition ID: 22067

* Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany;
Experte Export Control (w/m); Requisition ID: 22825

* InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA; 
ITAR Compliance Official / Deputy Facility Security Officer;

* InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA;
ITAR Compliance Official

# JAS Worldwide; Valley Stream, NY; Export Specialist;

# JAS Worldwide; El Paso, TX; 
Import Specialist;

*
JCB North America; Pooler, GA;
Compliance Manager
;

* Johnson and Johnson; Skillman, NJ;
Export Trade Compliance Lead;

# JTEKT North America Corporation; Greenville, South Carolina; Senior Import Export Specialist;
# Koch Industries; Tulsa, OK;
Import/Export Compliance Specialist;
* Livingston International; El Segundo, CA;
HTS Classification;

* Lockheed Martin; Sunnyvale, CA;
Licensing Analyst (Early Career); Requisition ID: 415037BR_1

*
 Lockheed Martin; Littleton, CO; 
Licensing Analyst (Early Career)
; Requisition ID: 415037BR

* Lockheed Martin; Littleton, CO;
International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 412863BR

* Lockheed Martin; Manassas, VA;
International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 399617BR
* Lockheed Martin; Shelton, CT;
International Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 403295BR
* Lockheed Martin; Shelton, CT;
Senior International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 415613BR
* Lockheed Martin; Stratford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Technology Specialist; Requisition ID: 415922BR
* Lockheed Martin; Ft Worth, TX;
International Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 416747BR
* Lockheed Martin; Ft Worth, TX;
International Trade Compliance Senior Staff; Requisition ID: 416527BR

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

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

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

* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; 
International Trade Compliance Export Advisor; Requisition ID: 402827BR
* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; 
Aeronautics International Trade Compliance Senior Manager; Requisition ID: 407329BR

*
LORD Corporation; Cary, NC; Global Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: REQ-17-528

* Lutron; Coopersburg, PA;
Trade Manager-Export; Requisition ID: 2926
* L-3 LINK Division; Tulsa, OK; 
Contracts Administrator 1; Requisition ID: 091686
* L-3 LINK Division; Arlington, TX;
Trade Compliance Practitioner / Empowered Official; Requisition ID: 089915
* L-3 ALST; Orlando, FL;
Contracts Manager / Empowered Official; Requisition ID: 093069
* L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Middle East;
International Business Development Manager – Middle East Region; Requisition ID: 093343
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 16000DYY
* Medtronic; Wash DC;
Global Trade Lawyer;
stacy.m.johnson@medtronic.com; Requisition ID: 170002ON

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

# Moog Inc.; Blacksburg, VA; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 174447

* Nortek Security & Control; Carlsbad, CA;
Global Logistics & Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: GLOBA01150

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2; Requisition ID: 17022805
*
Northrop Grumman; Huntsville, AL;
International Trade Compliance 3
; Requisition ID: 17026172
* Northrop Grumman; Rolling Meadows, IL; 
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition ID: 
17015695
* Northrop Grumman; San Diego, CA;
Import Export Administrator 3; Requisition ID: 17026003

* OneWeb; Arlington, VA;
Export Compliance Specialist

* 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

# Pegasus Maratime SRL; Los Angeles, CA;
Import Operations Specialist;

* Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance (ITC) Specialist; Requisition ID:
 49375BR

* Pratt & Whitney; West Palm Beach, FL;
International Trade Compliance (ITC) Specialist; Requisition ID: 
55088BR

* Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Technology Manager; Requisition ID: 
51863BR

* Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
Manager, International Trade Compliance Military Engines
Requisition ID: 57613BR

# Raytheon; Billerica, MA; Export Declarations Specialist;
* Raytheon SAS; McKinney, TX;
Senior Regulatory Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 
107180BR
* Raytheon IIS; Orlando, FL;
 
Global Trade Licensing Analyst II; Requisition ID: 104036BR
* Raytheon IIS; Dulles, VA;
Global Trade Licensing Analyst II
Requisition ID: 104036BR

# Rolls-Royce; Indianapolis, IN;
 
Export Control Specialist; Req ID:
 

JR6025484

*
RUAG Space USA; Huntsville AL; 
Global Trade Control Manager
; Requisition ID: 1748547

* SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
;
Danielle.Cannata@sabic.com
; Requisition ID: 8411BR
# SAFRAN Group; United Kingdom; Trade Compliance Specialist;

# SAFRAN Group; Denton, Texas;
Import Compliance Officer;

# Team Worldwide; Houston, Texas; Import Export Specialist;
* Teledyne Imaging; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;
Director of International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: TC0617

* Teledyne Imaging; Chestnut Ridge, NY; 
Director of International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2017-5558
*
 Teledyne Imaging; Billerica, MA; Director of International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2017-5558 

* Teledyne Imaging; Tarrytown, NY; 
Director of International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2017-5558
* Teledyne Imaging; Kiln, MS; 
Director of International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2017-5558
*
 Teledyne Imaging; Fredricton, NB; 
Director of International Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 2017-5558 

* Teledyne Relays, Inc.; Hawthorne, CA; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Req. ID 2017-5259
 

* Textron; Hunt Valley, MD;
2018 Intern – Export Import Analyst;

* Textron; Hunt Valley, MD;
Manager – Export Compliance;

* Textron; Hunt Valley, MD;
Senior Manager – Export Compliance;

*
Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, MA;
Director, Global Trade Compliance
;

# TLR; Portland, OR; Export Documentation Specialist; Requisition ID: 1042

# TLR; San Fransisco, CA;
Import CSR; Requisition ID: 1040

# TLR; Houston, TX; Import Supervisor; Requisition ID: 1041
*
Tradewin; Portland, OR;
U.S. Export Compliance Consultant

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

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Chula Vista, CA; 
ITC Specialist
; Requisition ID: 51240BR

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Chula Vista, CA; 
Supply Chain International Trade and Compliance Focal
; Requisition ID: 53794BR

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Everett, WA; 
International Trade Compliance (ITC) Specialist; Requisition ID: 52787BR
* 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

# Volvo; Charleston, SC; OBL- Operations & Ocean Export Specialist;
# Xilinx; San Jose, CA; Global Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 154441
# Xilinx; San Jose, CA; Global Trade Compliance Program Manager; Requisition ID: 154442
*
Xylem, Inc.; Any Location, United States;
Manager, Global Ethics & Compliance

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

(Source: Editor)
 

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES


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

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.  The latest amendments 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: 8 Dec 2017: 82 FR 57821-57825: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation
 
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(s): 8 Jan 2018: 83 FR 709-711: Revisions, Clarifications, and Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations; Correction; and 83 FR 706-709: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 28 Dec 2017: 
82 FR 61450-61451: Iraq Stabilization and Insurgency 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 (1 Jan 2018) 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 2018: 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: 1 Jan 2018: Updated HTS for 2018

  – 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: 3 Jan 2018: 83 FR 234-237: Department of State 2018 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 3 Jan 2018) 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