;

18-0518 Friday “Daily Bugle”

18-0518 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 18 May 2018

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

  1. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Forms 214, 214A, 214B, 214C, and 216, Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, and Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Posts Draft ES CATAIR in Support of Tariff Rate Adjustments and Section 232 Exclusions
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. President Continues National Emergency with Respect to Iraq
  6. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida
  7. Dutch Government Publishes Report Concerning Arms Export Control Policy 2017
  1. Independent: “EU Unveils Plans to Block Donald Trump’s Sanctions against Iran”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Tariffs, ACE Test, India, Seafood Imports”
  1. G. Husisian: “The Twelve Compliance Steps Every Multinational Corporation Should Undertake in Light of Recent Trump Administration Enforcement Activity” (Part IV of IV)
  2. M. Volkov: “Time for Companies to Establish an Independent Corporate Ombudsman”
  3. T. Thrall & C. Dorminey: “Trump’s New Arms Sales Policy: What You Should Know”
  4. Gary Stanley’s EC Tip of the Day
  1. FCC Presents “Summer Course U.S. Export Controls: An Introduction to the ITAR & EAR”, 12 Jun in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  2. List of Approaching Events – 11 New Events Listed
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (12 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (17 May 2018), FACR/OFAC (19 Mar 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (4 May 2018), ITAR (14 Feb 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1
. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Forms 214, 214A, 214B, 214C, and 216, Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, and Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit

(Source: Federal Register, 18 May 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 23286-23287: Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, and Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit
* 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. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – Title: Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, and Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0029.
  – Form Numbers: 214, 214A, 214B, 214C, and 216. …
  – Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to CBP Forms 214, 214A, 214B, 214C, and 216. …
  – Abstract: Foreign trade zones (FTZs) are geographical enclaves located within the geographical limits of the United States but for tariff purposes are considered to be outside the United States. Imported merchandise may be brought into FTZs for storage, manipulation, manufacture or other processing and subsequent removal for exportation, consumption in the United States, or destruction. A company bringing goods into an FTZ has a choice of zone status (privileged/non-privileged foreign, domestic, or zone-restricted), which affects the way such goods are treated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and treated for tariff purposes upon entry into the customs territory of the U.S.
  CBP Forms 214, 214A, 214B, and 214C, which make up the Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, are used by companies that bring merchandise into an FTZ to register the admission of such merchandise into FTZs and to apply for the appropriate zone status. CBP Form 216, Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit, is used by companies to request approval to manipulate, manufacture, exhibit, or destroy merchandise in an FTZ.
  These FTZ forms are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 81 and provided for by 19 CFR 146.22, 146.32, 146.39, 146.40, 146.41, 146.44, 146.52, 146.53, and 146.66. These forms are accessible here. …
 
   Dated: May 15, 2018.
Seth D. Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12
. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 
* President; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS; Iraq; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of May 18, 2018) [Publication Date: 21 May 2018.]
 
[Editor’s Note: The item is already included in today’s Daily Bugle, item #6.]
 

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

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

OGS_3
4. DHS/CBP Posts Draft ES CATAIR in Support of Tariff Rate Adjustments and Section 232 Exclusions
(Source: CSMS #18-000349, 18 May 2018.)
 
Draft Entry Summary CATAIR posted in support of Tariff Rate Adjustments and Section 232 Exclusions
 
On June 1, 2018, CBP plans to deploy changes to ACE Entry Summary that will allow CBP to validate tariff rate adjustments and exclusions in support of Section 232 measures pursuant to Presidential Proclamations 9704 and 9705, as amended, and the procedures published at 83 FR 12106, March 19, 2018.
 
The Entry Summary Create/Update (AE) transaction will expect the inclusion of the relevant HTS chapter 99 applicable for the article (i.e., the tariff adjustment), except if the Importer has been granted a product exclusion, or if the country of origin has been exempted from the duty measures. Filers should report the additional 232 duty as well as the normal duty (if any) for the article. The determination of the relevant date to determine if a remedy is in effect can be found in the AE CATAIR chapter’s ‘Duty Rate Date Matrix Hierarchy’ (in section ‘Basic Article Classification and Tariff Considerations’). The date is chosen from those reported (or those determined by CBP).
 
When applicable, a Product Exclusion Identifier shall be reported in the AE transaction’s 54-Record (Importer’s Additional Declaration Detail). Two additional Importer’s Additional Declaration Type Codes have been established:
 
  02 = Product Exclusion Information – Steel products.
  03 = Product Exclusion Information – Aluminum products
 
Please see the ACE Entry Summary Create/Update CATAIR and the ACE CATAIR Error Dictionary for additional information. A CSMS message will be issued with further details on submitting the product exclusion identifier.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a45. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
(Source: State/DDTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
The White House, 18 May 2018.)
 
On May 22, 2003, by Executive Order 13303, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.
 
The obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, Executive Order 13438 of July 17, 2007, and Executive Order 13668 of May 27, 2014, must continue in effect beyond May 22, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq declared in Executive Order 13303.
 
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
 
DONALD J. TRUMP
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
Official Journal of the European Union, 18 May 2018.)
 
*
 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/733
 
of 17 May 2018 amending for the 284th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations

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

(Source:
Rijksoverheid, 17 May 2018.)
 
The report (in Dutch) is available here.

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

NWSNEWS

(Source:
Independent, 18 May 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
Brussels has unveiled details of measures that would block American sanctions against European companies trying to do business with Iran, in a bid to head off Donald Trump‘s new economic assault on the Middle Eastern county.
 
The US president announced the re-introduction of the anti-Iran sanctions as he confirmed US was breaking the international deal designed to put a stop to the country’s nuclear programme – with the end to sanctions as a reward for compliance.
 
Mr Trump’s administration has not ruled out hitting European companies that trade with Iran with its new measures, so the EU has now responded by updating a “blocking statue” originally meant to circumvent a the US embargo against Cuba in the 1990s.
 
The move would prohibit EU-based companies from complying with the US sanctions, and provide compensation if they were affected by American penalties against them. …

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

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
  – 21 May: deadline for comments to USTR on WTO case concerning seafood imports
  – 21 May: deadline for comments to USDA on export certificate forms
  – 22 May: deadline for comments to FTZ Board on Minnesota facility request
  – 23 May: effective date of modifications to ACE test of FWS data
  – 23 May: deadline for comments to FDA on proposal to allow imports of some EU shellfish
  – 24 May: State Department meeting on maritime traffic facilitation
  – 25 May: deadline for applications for appointment to U.S.-India CEO Forum

 

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

 
* Gregory Husisian, Esq., ghusisian@foley.com, Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington DC.
 
[Editor’s Note: due to space limitations, this article has been divided into four parts. We will post one part every day, from Tuesday, 15 May until Friday, 18 May 2018.]
 
Step 9: Integrate Outsiders
 
As noted in the introduction to this International Compliance Guide, outsiders – third parties who act (or could be construed as acting) for the organization – are often a key source of risk. Once again, the First Law of International Compliance comes into play: The farther you get from your headquarters, the lower your degree of knowledge and control, and the greater the risk of a violation. This means that controlling the risk of a regulatory misstep requires paying close attention to the incremental risk added by third parties, including business partners, joint ventures, agents, sub-agents, consultants, and other third parties.
 
Despite the operation of the First Law of International Compliance, the normal approach of most companies relies heavily – and often exclusively – on contractual protections for third-party protection. Such measures are essential. The U.S. government will consider any third-party arrangements that do not include such protections to be deficient. Yet by themselves, such contractual provisions generally offer limited protection that might be appropriate for low-risk actors, but not for other scenarios.
 
One example of this is in the FCPA realm. It has become common in recent years for third-party intermediary contracts to contain audit provisions, which allow the U.S. party the right to audit a third party, either as a general manner upon notice or based upon specific knowledge of a potential red flag. The U.S. government, however, has recently expressed skepticism regarding the value of such provisions if they are not regularly exercised. These types of contractual provisions lose their in terrorem impact once the third party discovers the provisions are seldom or never applied.
 
Depending on the risk profile of the company, it may make sense to integrate outsiders into the risk management plan. This type of integration requires several common-sense solutions, including explicitly incorporating outsiders into the compliance program (where this is possible), providing them with training materials, conducting training for them, and exercising auditing rights on a risk-adjusted basis.
 
Such procedures are of use not only in the anti-corruption area, but also in the realms of economic sanctions and export controls. The rule is that U.S. jurisdiction follows the goods, services, or technologies, including through third parties, where the U.S. person “knew” that diversion was possible. Providing no such knowledge existed after the fact can be a difficult exercise. The importance of “knowing your customer” does not lose importance just because a third party is involved. If the U.S. government takes the view the third party was brought in to hide the nature of the transaction, then the risk profile of a transaction involving an affiliated third party can be even higher than for a direct transaction.
 
Step 10: Auditing and Checkups
 
It is difficult to have a strong compliance program unless it is regularly tested, probed, and analyzed. Stated differently, it is not enough to create a good compliance program and then let it run unattended, at least for high-risk areas. Companies should monitor compliance by direct observation, by supervising the program, and by testing the controls. One increasingly common way of ensuring the last element is to conduct regular compliance audits.
 
Checking on the operations of compliance programs and internal controls is increasingly common. Companies should use risk-based auditing principles to determine the countries, divisions, subsidiaries, and third parties that should be monitored through audits and compliance check-ups. Further, as noted in Step 9, companies also should consider extending such check-ups and audits to third parties as well.
 
A recent trend for accomplishing the goal of constant compliance self-improvement is for companies to benchmark their compliance policies against those of other companies in their industry to ensure they are keeping up with evolving compliance standards and industry best practices. A proper review, however, will go beyond ensuring the terms of the compliance program are state of the art. Companies also need to check the implementation of the program by making certain that people know of the policies and are following the requirements. Special emphasis, too, needs to be put on any changes in the organization that have occurred since implementation of the policy, including modifications to laws or changes in the company and its scope of operations. Examples include the establishment of new subsidiaries or the hiring of new agents, distributors, and so forth. It is also useful to consult any risk assessment previously performed to determine whether the compliance measures in operation are addressing these identified risks.
 
The audit and compliance checkup needs vary, depending upon the legal regime at issue. This topic is explored in the context of anti-corruption, export controls, economic sanctions, and anti-money laundering audits in the Annex to the Foley International Compliance Guide.
 
Step 11: Monitor Red Flags
 
The identification of red flags and appropriate follow up are the keystones to well-functioning compliance in all of the common international compliance areas. It is for this reason that one of the most important tasks when implementing international compliance is to train relevant stakeholders regarding the transactions and conduct that are suspicious given the regulatory requirements.
 
Identifying red flags is not a static process. The type of red flags to identify will depend on the company’s profile, whether it uses controlled technology or sells/exports controlled goods, its interactions with international regulators, the industry in which it is engaged, its method of operation, and other, unique factors. As a starting point for identification, common red flags for FCPA, export controls, and economic sanctions appear as Appendices to this International Compliance Guide. It is a good idea for an organization to tailor such red flags to its own risk profile and then distribute them to company personnel.
 
In recent years it has become common to establish whistleblower hotlines and other reporting mechanisms. The goal is to empower one of the company’s greatest compliance resources – the collective intelligence of its own work force – to help identify suspicious circumstances before they grow into all-encompassing problems. An easily available hotline, well-publicized and known both in the United States and abroad, is an important compliance resource.
 
It does little good to set up a helpline and then not to follow through on credible red flags raised. Once a credible report from the helpline is received, the compliance department should: (1) report the concern to relevant management actors; (2) evaluate the surface merit of the claim and develop a plan to deal with it; (3) follow up with an inquiry (if the report continues to seem credible); (4) log the investigatory steps taken; and (5) report the information up the compliance chain. The company should also give thought regarding steps to take to ensure the preservation of relevant evidence. The compliance department should record the results of every inquiry to allow the company to track reported concerns to see if they exhibit a pattern.
 
In following up on credible reports, the steps to consider include such things as interviewing the employee who made the complaint and attempting to determine the circumstances behind the complaint to determine if there is any valid basis for it. The company should inform the employee that a confidential investigation will occur and that investigators may pass on the report to members of senior management. The investigator should instruct the employee that the company will conduct the investigation through normal channels and that the employee should not attempt to conduct his or her own investigation. The investigator also should inform the employee that the company forbids retaliation and instruct the employee that if retaliatory behavior occurs, the employee should notify the compliance or legal department. The company should thoroughly investigate any complaints of retaliation.
 
During any investigation, the company should treat the complaining employee like any other. The company should continue to evaluate the employee’s work using normal procedures and standards and should both document any positive actions taken by the company toward the complaining employee (such as awards, promotions, or raises) and the full reasons for any discipline or reprimands in case the employee later raises claims of retaliation. At the end of the investigation, the company should inform the complaining party of the results of the investigation and what corrective steps the company took to address the substance of the complaint. Studies show that employees who believe their concerns were addressed in a thoughtful way are less likely to consider taking outside action, such as becoming a whistleblower. Due to confidentiality concerns, the company often should provide only general summaries of what occurred and how it was handled.
 
Step 12: Communicate with Board & Senior Management
 
In corporations that set the proper compliance tone, board-level involvement is regular and institutionalized. The key areas for board-level involvement include thorough oversight of compliance initiatives, quarterly reports of compliance activities, and special communications for potentially serious matters.
 
Board members should receive regular reports detailing the number and type of reports of potentially serious compliance violations, interpretations of the meaning of this data, and recommendations regarding how the company should update compliance procedures to address areas of concern and potential changes to the organization’s risk profile. The report should include the results of any investigations of serious possible violations and the results of any compliance audits. The report also might benchmark compliance efforts against those of competitors. Written materials should be accompanied by direct and personal briefing by the Chief Compliance Officer or General Counsel, as appropriate.
 
Based on these reports and other information, board members, or the compliance or audit committee, should consider whether the company is devoting sufficient resources to the program and whether compliance personnel have a direct conduit to the board or appropriate board committee. [FN/5] They also should consider whether the compliance plan appropriately covers all areas of the company.
 
Boards or committee members that receive compliance reports also need to probe beyond the four corners of the reports. They should assure themselves that the reports are complete, accurate, and do not present a whitewashed version of compliance issues. If a high-level person who has oversight of compliance presents the report, this may require additional reports from the person who has day-to-day responsibility for the compliance program, as called for by the Commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines. [FN/6] Sometimes, it may be appropriate for the board to meet with the internal auditor.
 
A final consideration is communications with shareholders, if a publicly traded company is involved. The board, or the compliance or audit committee, needs to determine when a potential compliance situation is important enough to require disclosure as a material fact. This can involve any situation where the potential costs of investigation are high (and therefore material), where the conduct could jeopardize important rights due to the conduct (such as the right to export), where the problem appears to be systemic, where senior management is involved, or where there is the potential for a serious penalty. Another consideration is whether the conduct might require disclosure for another reason, such as the need to disclose the nature of a transaction involving Iran under new SEC disclosure requirements related to such conduct.
 
———–
  [FN/5] As the Sentencing Guidelines note, a corporation should support the person running a compliance program with “adequate resources, appropriate authority, and direct access to the governing authority or an appropriate subgroup.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8B2.1(b)(2)(C).
  [FN/6] U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8B2.1 (commentary note 3) (discussing annual reports from the person with day-to-day responsibility).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 17 May 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
Corporate commitment to speak up cultures is suffering. The Ethics and Compliance Initiative’s recent Global National Business Ethics Survey (available HERE) contained a critical finding – corporate instances of retaliation against employee for raising concerns doubled in the last five years.
 
In the 2013 survey, 22 percent of respondents reported instances of retaliation against employees. This number increased to an astounding 44 percent of respondents in the 2018 survey. This is an astonishing result, especially when you consider all of the positive developments over the last five years in the ethics and compliance field.
 
My question is basic – are companies really interested in hearing and responding to employee concerns?
 
The deterioration in this basic relationship between company leadership and employees will undermine any chance a company may have to develop an ethical culture. It goes without saying, but employees will not trust their companies if there is no real commitment to listen to and address their concerns.
 
An additional finding on this issue in the ECI report should be addressed as well – most attempts to retaliate against an employee occurred in the three-week period following the communications of the concern. Companies have to mindful of the period of time shortly after a manager or executive learns of a specific concern to prevent any retaliation against the employee.
 
The significant increase in retaliation against employees who raise concerns is disturbing and runs counter to corporate progress made in elevating culture and ethics. The message behind retaliation is devastatingly clear – do not rock the boat, do not complain, and keep your mouth shut or else you will suffer. Unfortunately, companies that do not listen to their employees are bound to suffer serious harm from misconduct or disasters that could have been avoided had they encouraged employees to raise concerns.
 
The value of maintaining a speak up culture is unquestionable. Companies that listen to their employees avoid safety, economic and serious harms, and promote a positive culture, leading to the sustainable growth and improved performance.
 
In the face of this obvious contradiction, forward-thinking companies need to reexamine a possible solution – an independent ombudsman. My friend and mentor, Judge Stanley Sporkin served for years as the BP Ombudsman and has frequently touted the benefits of such a program.
 
An independent ombudsman, if properly established, can provide an important avenue for employee concerns. The commitment to an independent ombudsman can result in trust between the company’s leaders and its employees. It is a costly step but one that can bring significant results, especially in those industries subject to incentivized whistleblowers.
 
An independent ombudsman, however, has to operate with backing from senior leadership and the company’s board. If the ombudsman identifies issues for remediation, the company cannot fight nor ignore the recommendations. The ombudsman’s credibility depends on his/her ability to resolve issues and mandate changes.
 
An ombudsman’s ability to promote a speak up culture requires that he/she have adequate authority and resources to investigate specific issues, and to promote its function of responding to employee concerns in a timely and effective manner. As the ombudsman gains credibility, employees will increase reporting of concerns with the expectation that they will be heard, investigated and addressed. This is a vital communications loop that has to be promoted as part of a speak up culture.
 
It is unfortunate that corporate governance in the United States has reached the point where companies can no longer meet basic requirements for a speak up culture without establishing a separate and independent mechanism. The trend over the last few years is unmistakable – retaliation against employees who report concerns continues to increase despite corporate awareness of the dangers of such behavior to a company’s culture. The facts are the facts, and change is needed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
CATO Institute, 16 May 2018.)
 
On April 19, 2018 the Trump administration released an updated version of the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, the primary document outlining the strategy and guidelines for American arms sales abroad. Compared to the Obama- and Bush-era guidelines, the Trump administration’s policy emphasizes the economic benefits from arms sales. As a result, the new policy is focused on streamlining the arms sales process, loosening controls on what can be exported, and encouraging the U.S. government to be more active in brokering deals. At a news briefing announcing the new policy Peter Navarro, assistant to the president for trade and manufacturing policy, said that, “This will keep our defense industrial base in the vanguard of emerging defense technologies while creating thousands of additional jobs with good wages and generating substantial export revenues.”
 
Though the consequences of this policy change will take years to unfold, there are several things we can already predict about the limits and dangers of the new policy. Below we list the most important areas to watch and provide links to some of the best analysis available to date around the web.
 
It’s all about jobs, but it won’t create many.
 
If the administration’s primary goal is to enrich a few major defense contractors, it may succeed. If, on the other hand, the goal is to create American jobs and bolster the economy more generally, disappointment is inevitable.
 
Jonathan Caverley, writing at War on the Rocks, argues:
 

Even if the Trump administration boosts sales against such headwinds, this will not create many additional jobs. Arms exports are a surprisingly inefficient means of employing people at home. Using census data, 
the Commerce Department estimates that a billion dollars of defense exports would “create or sustain” 3,918 jobs, considerably fewer than the 
5,700 jobs per billion created by increased US exports more broadly. Doubling the United States’ annual arms exports to $40 billion, a highly unrealistic goal, would thus create fewer than 80,000 new jobs. There are other industries the United States can promote that will 
have larger effects on jobs.

 
Unleash the Drones
 
Until now the United States has kept a close hold on armed drones like the Predator and Reaper, allowing China to meet most of the global demand. Under the new policy the United States will begin to sell some drones through the direct commercial sales process.
 
In an oped for the the Washington Post Michael C. Horowitz and Joshua A. Shwartz write:
 

The new policy goes further than the Obama administration’s 
2015 guidance in a few ways. This means U.S. manufacturers can export more directly to other countries and bypass the 
foreign military sales process, which entails more time-consuming involvement from the U.S. government. Second, the new rules 
reclassify drones with strike-enabling technology, like laser target designators, as unarmed, which will make it easier to export them.

 
Counterterrorism Baked Right in
 
A much less visible policy change with important ramifications is the move by the House Foreign Affairs Committee to amend the Arms Export Control Act to include counterterrorism as an explicit strategic justification for weapon sales.
 
As Caroline wrote for Ink Stick, this seemingly subtle change in language expands the legal and institutional footprint of the war on terror and does so despite the fact that most of the major conventional weapons for sale by the U.S. aren’t much use for fighting terrorism or insurgencies. 
 
Every Fed is Now a Salesperson
 
With this increased sales push, the Trump administration has established a new “whole of government” approach. From the same Inkstick article, Caroline also notes,
 

The change will effectively turn civil servants who had been third-party brokers between foreign governments and American defense contractors into de facto salespeople. Officials talking up American defense products isn’t new, but giving them the directive to increase “economic security” gives profit a greater emphasis – with the commander-in-chief and his 2017 sales pitches to the Saudis, for example, offering 
model behavior in this regard.

 
Arms Sales Will Now (Likely) Cost U.S. Taxpayers More Money
 
It’s still unclear how this strategy will be implemented at the guidance and framework level, but there are several logical changes that could flow from a new emphasis on profit. This could include a transition from deals that use offsets as incentives to increased use of Foreign Military Financing and other incentives that would shift the burden of incentives from industry to the federal government. Caroline explained the implications of this change, writing:
 

Currently, the majority of incentives to foreign buyers of American weapons come in the form of offsets. These agreements are made once the US government has cleared a sale and the company can liaise with whichever foreign government is purchasing the product. Offsets are meant to make the deals more attractive, and can include anything from co-production to technology transfer to Foreign Direct Investments. This takes a major cut out of any profit for the defense contractors, who shoulder most of the cost. In 2014 alone, contractors 
reported $20.5 billion in defense-related merchandise exports, with $13 billion worth of those sales including some kind of offset. The total value of reported offset agreements for that year was $7.7 billion – over one-third the value of total defense exports for that year.

 
Obviously, this makes offsets an unattractive option for increasing economic security. The defense industry would prefer not to bear that burden-so then how will diplomats sweeten the deal for interested buyers while still protecting profit margins? …
 
Foreign Military Financing…to the Rescue?
 
This type of financing comes directly out of the US federal budget-specifically out of the State Department’s portion. The final budget omnibus that was signed into law in March settled on $6.1 billion to give freely to other countries to purchase American weapons. That’s right-$6 billion of American taxpayer dollars this year alone will go towards subsidizing the arsenals of other nations so that they too can “Buy American.” Foreign Military Financing had, until now, been on the decline. From 1985 to 2015 the program decreased 50 percent in real terms. With this new economic security component to stated guidance on arms sales, there is a very real possibility that Foreign Military Financing could continue to rise.
 
Arms sales Will Continue to Be a Risky Business
 
As we wrote in a Cato Policy Analysis published in March, the United States has a poor track record when it comes to assessing the potential risks from selling weapons abroad. Since 2002 the United States has sold over $300 billion worth of major conventional weapons to 167 countries including places with repressive governments, histories of human rights abuses, and which are engaged in active conflicts.
 
Unfortunately, despite the many negative unintended consequences that arms sales can spawn, nothing in the Trump administration’s new policy suggests it will pay any more attention to these risks than previous administrations. Given the administration’s zeal to sell more weapons abroad, the most likely outcome is even less sensitivity to downstream risks. Stay tuned.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a4
14. Gary Stanley’s EC Tip of the Day

(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update, 17 May 2018. Available by subscription from gstanley@glstrade.com.)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059, gstanley@glstrade.com.
 
If you are providing technical assistance to a foreign national police force, beware that ITAR § 130.3 defines the term “Armed forces” as meaning the army, navy, marine, air force, or coast guard, as well as the national guard and national police, of a foreign country. This term also includes any military unit or military personnel organized under or assigned to an international organization.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
15. FCC Presents “Summer Course U.S. Export Controls: An Introduction to the ITAR & EAR”, 12 Jun in Bruchem, the Netherlands


 
* What: Summer Course U.S. Export Controls: An Introduction to the ITAR & EAR
* When: 12 Jun 2018, 10 AM – 4 PM (CEST)
* Where: Landgoed Groenhoven, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Sponsor: Full Circle Compliance (FCC)
* FCC Speaker Panel: Mike Farrell and Ghislaine Gillessen
* Register: Here or by e-mail events@fullcirclecompliance.eu

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

TE_a3
16. 
List of Approaching Events – 11 New Events Listed
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

Published every Friday or last publication day of the week, o
ur overview of Approaching Events is organized to list c
ontinuously available training, training events, s
eminars & conferences, and 
webinars. 
 
Please, submit your event announcement to John Bartlett, Events & Jobs Editor (email: 
jwbartlett@fullcirclecompliance.eu
), composed in the below format:
 
# DATE: LOCATION; “EVENT TITLE”; EVENT SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT DETAILS (email and/or phone number)
 

#” = New or updated listing  

 
Continuously Available Training
 
* E-Seminars: “US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls“; Export Compliance Training Institute; danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* Webinar: ”
Company-Wide US Export Controls Awareness Program“; Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* E-Seminars: “ITAR/EAR Awareness“; Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
*Online: “Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)“; Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “Webinars On-Demand Library“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
* Online: “International Trade Webinars“; Global Training Center
*
 
Online: “On-Demand Webinars“; “General Training“; Center for Development of Security Excellence; Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Online: “ACE Reports Training and User Guide“; DHS/CBP

* Online: ”
Increase Your International Sales – Webinar Archive“; U.S. Commercial Service

* Web Form: “Compliance Snapshot Assessment“; Commonwealth Trading Partners (CTP)
* Online: “
Customs Broker Exam Prep Course
“; The Exam Center
 
Seminars and Conferences
 

* May 20-22: Portland, OR; “Spring 2018 Seminar“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
* May 22: Portland, OR; “FREE – FTZ Grantee Training“; U.S. Foreign Trade Zones Board
* May 22: Houston, TX; “
Classification: How to Classify Parts
“; Amber Road

* May 22-23: Miami, FL; “Export Compliance Seminar and Workshop“; 
South Florida District Export Council / U.S. Commercial Service, at University of Miami

* May 22-23: London, UK; “Upstream Oil and Gas Legal Forum“; C5 Group
* May 22-24: Las Vegas, NV; “Licensing Expo 2018: The Meeting Place for the Global Licensing Industry“; U.S. Commercial Service
* May 23: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 23-24: Berlin, Germany; “12th Annual Exporters’ Forum on Global Economic Sanctions“; C5 Group
* May 23-24: Cleveland, OH; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“;   BIS Outreach and Educational Services Division
 
* May 24: Tewksbury, MA; “DFARS Cybersecurity 2.0: The Year of Continuous Monitoring“; NDIA New England
* May 24: London, UK; “Making Better License Applications“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 29-31: Hong Kong; “Hong Kong Summit on Economic Sanctions and Compliance Enforcement“; American Conference Institute

# Jun 4-5: Washington, D.C.; ”
The WorldECR Export Controls and Sanctions Forum 2018“; World ECR

* Jun 5: London, UK; “ITAR & EAR from a UK Perspective – Advanced“; Strong and Herd
* Jun 5-6: Chicago, IL; “EAR Boot Camp“; American Conference Institute
* Jun 7: Chicago, IL; “ITAR Boot Camp“; American Conference Institute
* Jun 6-7: Seattle, WA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Jun 6-7: Munich, Germany; “US Trade Controls Compliance in Europe“; NielsonSmith
* Jun 6-7: Munich, Germany; “Pharma Patent Term Extensions“; C5 Group
* Jun 6-8: Baltimore, MD; “97th Annual AAEI Conference and Expo“; American Association of Importers and Exporters

* Jun 7: Chicago, IL; ”
ITAR Boot Camp“; American Conference Institute

* Jun 8: Stafford, VA; “Spring Golf Outing“; Society for International Affairs;

* Jun 12: Bruchem, Netherlans; ”
Summer Course U.S. Export Controls;” Full Circle Compliance 

# Jun 12-13: Houston, TX; “
Complying with US Export Controls
“; Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) 

* Jun 12-13: Stockholm, Sweden; “Trade Compliance Nordics“; C5 Group
* Jun 13: San Diego, CA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Jun 13: Derby, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
# Jun 14-15: Annapolis, MD; “May 2018 Seminar Level III-Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges“; Export Compliance Solutions; spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com; 866-238-4018 
# Jun 14: Houston, TX; “Technology and Software Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
* Jun 14: Boston, MA; “Export Regulatory Compliance Update“; Massachusetts Export Center
* Jun 14: Derby, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 14: Washington, D.C.; “2018 Women In Defense National Conference” Women in Defense / NDIA
* Jun 14: Derby, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 14: Derby, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 17-19: Amsterdam, Netherlands; “2018 ICPA European Conference“; International Compliance Professionals Association
* Jun 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Global Trade Academy
 
* Jun 20-21: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates 
* Jun 27: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 27-28: London, UK; “12th Annual Conference on Anti-Corruption“; C5
* Jun 28: London, UK; “
Making Better License Applications
“; UK Department for International Trade
 

# Jun 28-29: London, UK; ”
The WorldECR Export Controls & Sanctions Forum 2018“; World ECR

# Jul 2-6: Paris, France; “Training On ISO 19600 & ISO 37001 In Paris
* Jul 4: Cambridge, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 5: Cambridge, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 5: Cambridge, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 5: Cambridge, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 10: Chicago, IL; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Jul 10-11: Columbia, SC; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* July 10-12: Chicago, IL; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road 
* Jul 11-14: Laredo, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys  
* Jul 16-18: National Harbor, Maryland; “2018 Summer Basics Conference“; Society for International Affairs
* Jul 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber“; Global Trade Academy
 
* Jul 19: McLean, VA; “ITAR for the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Jul 19-20: Torrance, CA; “
Customs Compliance For Import Personnel
“; Foreign Trade Association
* Aug 1-3: Washington, D.C.; “NSSF and Fair Trade Import/Export Conference“; NSSF
* Aug 6: Detroit, MI; “Export Compliance and Controls“; Global Trade Academy
* Aug 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Aug 14-15: Milpitas, CA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Aug 16: Milpitas, CA; “Encryption Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 12-13: Springfield, RI; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 13-17: Galveston, TX (Cruise); “ICPA @ SEA!“; International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Sep 16-19: Atlanta, GA; “2018 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
* Sep 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Import Compliance“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 17-20: Columbus, OH; “University Export Controls Seminar at The Ohio State University in Columbus“; Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI); jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Sep 17-21: Los Angeles, CA; “Import 5-Day Boot Camp“; Global Trade Academy  

#
Sep 18: San Diego, CA; “
12th CompTIA Global Trade Compliance Best Practices Conference“; CompTIA

* Sep 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Tariff Classification for Importers and Exporters“; Global Trade Academy 
# Sep 19: Washington, D.C.; “ DDTC In-House Seminar“; Department of State (Registration: Aug 10 – Aug 31; first come, first served)
* Sep 19: Los Angeles, CA; “NAFTA and Trade Agreements“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 19-20: Rome, Italy; “Defense Exports 2018“; SMi
* Sep 20: Los Angeles, CA; “Country and Rules of Origin“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 21: Los Angeles, CA; “Customs Valuation – The Essentials“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 21-24: Detroit, Michigan; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys 
* Sep 26: McLean, VA; “EAR Basics“; FD Associates 
* Sep 26: Oxford, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 16-18: Dallas, TX; “Partnering for Compliance West Export/Import Control Training and Education Program“; Partnering for Compliance 
* Oct 18-19: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates
* Oct 19: Dallas TX; “
Customs/Import Boot Camp
“; Partnering for Compliance
* Oct 21-23: Grapevine, TX; “2018 Fall Conference“; ICPA
* Oct 22-26: Dallas, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys
* Oct 22-23: Arlington, VA; “2018 Fall Advanced Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)
* Oct 24: Leeds, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 29 – Nov 1: Phoenix, AZ; ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Oct 30 – Nov 1: Seattle, WA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 6: Detroit, MI; “Classification: How to Classify Parts“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 7-9: London, UK; “TRACE European Forum, 2018“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Nov 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Advanced Classification for Machinery & Electronics“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 12-15: Washington, D.C.; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Nov 13: Tysons Corner, VA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 14: Manchester, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade

* Nov 14-15: London, UK; “
Economic Sanctions & Financial Crime
“; C5 Group 

* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: McLean, VA; “ITAR For the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Nov 27: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Dec 3-7: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy 
* Dec 4-5: Frankfurt, Germany; “US Defence Contracting and DFARS Compliance in Europe;” C5 Group
* Dec 5: London, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 5: London, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade
* Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Export Controls and Licenses
“; 
* Dec 11: Manchester, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade
 
2019
 

* Jan 6-7: Long Beach, CA; ”
Fundamentals of FTZ Seminar“;

* May 5-7: Savannah, GA; “2019 Spring Seminar“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
* Sep 8-11: Chicago, IL; “2019 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
 
Webinars 
 

May 22: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Sweaters and Articles of Heading 6110“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 

* Mar 22: Webinar; “Brexit Update: Implications for U.S. Exports to the U.K. and E.U. Webinar“; U.S. Commercial Service

May 23: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Coated and Down Garments“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  

May 24: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Plywood, Veneered Panels, and Similar Laminated Wood“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
May 29: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Cameras of Subheading 8525.80“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  
* May 30: Webinar; “Recent Developments in EU Export Controls and Sanctions“; Women In International Trade

May 30: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Bitcoin Miners“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)   
* May 31: Webinar; “Exporting Under NAFTA“; ECTI; 540-433-3977
May 31: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Women’s Knit Tank Tops“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 4: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Wafers, Transformers, and PCBAs“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)

Jun 5: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Alcoholic Beverages“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  
Jun 6: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Self-Adhesives of Heading 3919“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 7: Webinar; “Resource Guide on Trade Actions“; NAFTZ 
* Jun 7: Webinar; “The Essentials and Challenges of Exporting Firearms and Ammunition“; ECTI; 540-433-3977 
* Jun 12: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Glass Containers: Headings 7010 and 7013“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 12: Webinar; “Duty Drawback and Refunds“; U.S. Commercial Service
Jun 13: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Ornaments, Boxes, and Furniture of Heading 4420“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 

Jun 14: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Medical Instruments and Appliances“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  

Jun 18: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Heating and Cooling Treatment Facilities“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  
Jun 19: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Sanitary Ware of Iron or Steel“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
# Jun 19: Webinar; “Export 101: Starting at the Beginning“; ECTI
Jun 20: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Polymer Basics“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 21: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Antidumping on Diamond Sawblades“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 25: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Gloves“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 26: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Bed Linens“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 27: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Fundamentals of Footwear“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 

Jul 7: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: What’s a Toy?“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  
Jul 10: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Food Incorporating Alcohol“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)  

* Jul 12: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Understanding Types of Woven Fabric“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 16: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Electromechanical Domestic Appliances“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 17: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Other Articles of Steel“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 

* Jul 19: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Tubes and Pipes of Iron or Steel“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a117
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)


Omar Khayyam
(18 May 1048 – 4 Dec 1131; was a Persian mathematician, astronomer, and poet. As a mathematician, he is most notable for his work on the classification and solution of cubic equations, where he provided geometric solutions by the intersection of conics. As an astronomer, he composed a calendar which proved to be a more accurate computation of time than that proposed five centuries later by Pope Gregory XIII. His poetry became widely known to the English-reading world due to the translation by Edward FitzGerald, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam).
  – “Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life.”
 
Friday funnies: 
 
Two police officers crash their car into a tree.  After a moment of silence, one of them says, “Wow, that’s got to be the fastest we ever got to an accident site.”

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

EN_a218. 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: 
12 Apr 2018: 
83 FR 15736-15740
: CBP Decision No. 18-04; Definition of Importer Security Filing Importer
 
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):
17 May 2018:
83 FR 22842-22846
: Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL) 

 

FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders

  – Last Amendment:
19 Mar 2018: 83 FR 11876-11881: Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties

 

FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30  

  – Last Amendment: 24 Apr 2018:
83 FR 17749-17751
: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates

  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
  –
The latest edition (30 April 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 approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word 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. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu
 
* 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: 4 May 2018: Harmonized System Update 1807, containing 289 ABI records and 60 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: 14 Feb 2018:
83 FR 6457-6458: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Addition of South Sudan [Amends ITAR Part 126.]

  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 25 Apr 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_a319
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)
 

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

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

* 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, DOE/NRC, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, FAR/DFARS, 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, provided attribution is given to “The Export/Import Daily Bugle of (date)”. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.

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

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

* BACK ISSUES: An archive of Daily Bugle publications from 2005 to present is available HERE.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top