18-0618 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-0618 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 18 June 2018

The 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.

[No items of interest noted today.]

  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: “Fuyi Sun of Philipsburg, PA, Denied Export Privileges for a Period of 10 Years”
  3. DoD/DSCA Posts Policy Memo 18-30
  4. GAO Ex/Im Reports and Testimonies of Interest
  5. State/DDTC Announces Registration Period for In-House Seminar on 19 Sep
  6. EU Amends Certain Specific Economic and Financial Restrictions Concerning Iraq
  7. EU Extends Sanctions Against Russia For A Year in Response to “Illegal Annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol”
  8. Dutch Government Releases English Guidelines and FAQs Concerning Internal Compliance Programs
  1. Defense News: “Germany Bolsters Prospects for Military Exports”
  2. Foreign Policy: “OFAC Off”
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “China to Levy Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Goods”
  4. WAMU.org: “As Vote on ZTE Sanctions Looms, Some U.S. Lawmakers Focus On A Bigger Chinese Telecom”
  1. B. Leeds: “The Final Stage of Export Control Reform – Revisions to USML Categories I-III”
  2. J. Bozman, Z. Mears & S.B. Cassidy: “Senate Armed Services Committee Proposes Expansive but Unclear Software Review Provisions”
  3. R.C. Burns: “Justice Limits What Lawyers Can Say to OFAC without Registering as a Foreign Agent”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 189 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 6 New Jobs
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (12 Jun 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (6 Jun 2018), FACR/OFAC (19 Mar 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (8 Jun 2018), ITAR (14 Feb 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 



[No items of interest noted today.]

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


OGS_a11. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* Treasury/OFAC; RULES; Rough Diamonds Control Regulations [Publication Date: 19 Jun 2018.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Commerce/BIS: “Fuyi Sun of Philipsburg, PA, Denied Export Privileges for a Period of 10 Years” 
Commerce/BIS, 18 Jun 2018.) [Summary.]   
* Respondent: Fuyi Sun a/k/a Frank Sun of Philipsburg, PA
* Charges: knowingly and willfully attempting to export and causing to be exported from the U.S. to China Toray type M60JB-300 carbon fiber, without the required U.S. Department of Commerce licenses.
* Penalty: Denial of export privileges for a period of 10 years from the date of Sun’s conviction. 
* Date of Order: 13 Jun 2018. 

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

DoD/DSCA Posts Policy Memo 18-30

DoD/DSCA, 18 Jun 2018.) 

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

GAO Ex/Im Reports and Testimonies of Interest

GAO Reports and Testimonies, 18 Jun 2018.)
* The Administration’s 2015 Plan and 2017 Update for Nuclear Proliferation Verification and Monitoring Generally Did Not Address Reporting Requirements. GAO-18-505R: Published: Jun 18, 2018. Publicly Released: Jun 18, 2018. Full report available 

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

State/DDTC Announces Registration Period for In-House Seminar on 19 Sep

State/DDTC, 18 Jun 2018.) 
Registration for The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) In-House Seminar for Wednesday, September 19th, 2018 opens August 10th and closes August 31st. Attendees will be identified on a first-come, first-serve basis. Preference will be given to new registrants and small-businesses. A completed registration form must be sent to the DDTC In-House Seminar email, as an attachment, 
For more information, please visit the 
DDTC Outreach Programs page
 and click the “In-House Seminars” tab.

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

EU Amends Certain Specific Economic and Financial Restrictions Concerning Iraq

Official Journal of the European Union, 18 Jun 2018.) 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/875
 of 15 June 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain
specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq 

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

EU Extends Sanctions Against Russia For A Year in Response to “Illegal Annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol” 

European Council, 18 Jun 2018.) 
On 18 June 2018, the EU Council extended the restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia until 23 June 2019.
The measures apply to EU persons and EU based companies. They are limited to the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol. The sanctions include prohibitions on:
  – imports of products originating in Crimea or Sevastopol into the EU;
  – investment in Crimea or Sevastopol, meaning that no Europeans nor EU-based companies can buy real estate or entities in Crimea, finance Crimean companies or supply related services; 
  – tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol, in particular, European cruise ships cannot call at ports in the Crimean peninsula, except in case of emergency;  
  – exports of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies or for use in Crimea in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors and related to the prospection, exploration and production of oil, gas and mineral resources. Technical assistance, brokering, construction or engineering services related to infrastructure in these sectors must not be provided either.
As stated in the declaration by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on behalf of the EU on 16 March 2018, the EU remains firmly committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Four years on from the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation, the EU reiterated that it does not recognize and continues to condemn this violation of international law.

  – Visit the meeting page

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

Dutch Government Releases English Guidelines and FAQs Concerning Internal Compliance Programs

Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4 Jun 2018.)  
This document (in English) contains guidelines for businesses and was drawn up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in close collaboration with the Central Office for Import and Export (CDIU). It serves as a guide for implementing an Internal Compliance Program (ICP) that sets out responsibilities for compliance with the applicable legal requirements. This document is primarily intended for exporters of strategic and sanctioned goods. It also provides useful pointers for exporters of strategic technology.
To read the related FAQs, click 

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


Defense News: “Germany Bolsters Prospects for Military Exports”
Defense News, 16 Jun 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
The outlook for German foreign arms sales has strengthened, with the government coalition led by 
Chancellor Angela Merkel pushing to focus on allies in Europe.
  “Germany clearly in their coalition paper indicated they wanted a more European approach,” said Frank Haun, co-chairman of KNDS, the joint venture between KMW and Nexter. Haun spoke to Defense News at the Eurosatory trade show for land weapons.
  “This is the right path. This means they will find a solution.” Haun is also CEO of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. Stephane Mayer, CEO of Nexter, is the co-chairman at KNDS.
  “The principle is Germany is on the move,” Haun said. “It is not a block. It is a process and it takes time.”
Arms export is a highly sensitive topic in Germany, with strong debate over the use of German weapons by client nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively heavily engaged in Syria and Yemen. A sought-after alignment of 
French and German arm export policy is key to KNDS. The partner companies, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Nexter, have long competed with each other, but now they seek to work cooperatively to snag opportunities in the world market.
There is little public controversy in France on arms export, on which successive governments publish an annual report to parliament, giving details of the deals won in the previous year. French media have asked the Armed Forces Ministry when this year’s report will be released. Clearance of foreign arms deals lies in political hands and once policy is set, then companies can pursue their target markets.
  “We are not in charge of external policy of our two countries,” said Mayer. “However, we wish that they find an agreement, to make things clear from the beginning on how to export the systems.”
If there is political clearance for sales limited to the European market, then KNDS could focus its efforts. That includes building new factories in Europe, Mayer said. The European market for main battle tanks is worth an estimated €80 billion (U.S. $93 billion) based on an estimated park of 8,000 tanks, worth €10 million per unit, Haun said. … 
Germany ranks among the top arms sellers, along with Britain and France. 
The U.S. and Russia lead the rankings. Both French and German governments insist they exercise strict control over the sale of weapons abroad.

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

Foreign Policy: “OFAC Off”
Foreign Policy, 15 Jun 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
Just a few days after U.S. President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, France’s economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, 
gave several interviews
 in which he stressed that European leaders would be asking themselves, “What can we do to give Europe more financial tools allowing it to be independent from the United States?” Le Maire specifically pointed to the U.S. Treasury’s fearsome Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions and has levied billions of dollars’ worth of fines on companies such as BNP Paribas, Standard Chartered Bank, and the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. He wondered aloud, “Why don’t we create the same type of agency in Europe, capable of following the activities of foreign companies and checking if they are respecting European decisions?” 

The comment seemed flippant, an economy minister’s way of expressing frustration, and was not viewed as a policy that Europe was about to seriously consider. Yet, a few weeks later, European leaders are still scrambling to implement concrete measures to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, whether by 
sustaining oil purchases from Iran, 
instructing the European Investment Bank to make financing available for projects in Iran, or attempting to help multinationals and small and medium-sized enterprises 
maintain their Iran operations. But consultations with government officials, business leaders, and technical experts make it clear that pursuing individual measures in isolation will be insufficient to mitigate the chilling effect of secondary sanctions imposed by the United States on companies which had sought commercial links with Iran. Europe needs a holistic and institutionalized strategy to push back and achieve two crucial goals.  …  

The office in charge of European sanctions policy is buried 
within the hierarchy of the European External Action Service … 
EU-OFAC could serve the same licensing purpose for a wider scope of business in Iran, reviewing and certifying due diligence just as export control authorities have done in the past. These licenses could be linked to additional measures, such as a compensation scheme (another idea 
floated by Le Maire
) to offset penalties in the case of an inadvertent U.S. sanctions violation. For example, if a European company structures itself to conduct compliant business with Iran and seeks certification from EU-OFAC of its due diligence, but nevertheless ends up being penalized by the United States for unknowingly working with an SDN entity, the company could seek mediation from EU-OFAC with regard to enforcement action by U.S. authorities, as well as compensation from the European Union for any eventual penalty. Moreover, EU-OFAC could also offer companies assistance in seeking waivers or licenses from the U.S. government.

There are also complementary steps that can be taken by the private sector, with the support of EU-OFAC. In Germany, a small group of credit unions have established an “international competence center” to pool resources and centralize expertise on Iran-related transactions. In 
a recent interview, Patrizia Melfi, the center’s director, said that the banks’ supervisory board had given a green light to continue work with Iran despite the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal. In Melfi’s assessment, the imperative is “to be well informed and conduct detailed checks of the companies’ deals.” If these steps are taken and European entities comply with the current export controls in both Europe and the United States, Melfi said, then they won’t face any consequences.

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

ST&R Trade Report: “China to Levy Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Goods” 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 18 Jun 2018.)
China’s Ministry of Finance announced June 15 that it will respond in kind to the U.S. Section 301 tariffs announced the same day (see related article this issue).
First, beginning July 6 China will impose an additional 25 percent tariff on 545 U.S. goods with an import value of approximately $US 34 billion. Affected products (
click here for the full list in Chinese) include agricultural goods and automobiles.
Next, on a date to be determined, China will levy an additional 25 percent tariff on 114 other U.S. goods (
click here for the full list in Chinese), including chemical products, medical equipment, and energy products such as coal, crude oil, and gas.
President Trump said if China goes forward with these or other retaliatory measures (e.g., non-tariff barriers or punitive actions against U.S. exporters or U.S. companies operating in China) the U.S. will pursue further tariffs against China.

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

WAMU.org: “As Vote on ZTE Sanctions Looms, Some U.S. Lawmakers Focus On A Bigger Chinese Telecom”
WAMU.org, 15 Jun 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
The U.S. Senate is set to vote as early as next week on whether to reinstate crippling trade sanctions against Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. With that move in sight, a number of U.S. senators are taking aim at a much bigger Chinese target: Huawei – the world’s third-largest seller of smartphones, behind Samsung and Apple.
Top U.S. security officials have warned for years that Huawei could pose a security risk to America by using its technology to spy on behalf of the Chinese government. Huawei has consistently denied that it gives intelligence to Chinese authorities, though many U.S. senators remain unconvinced. 
Huawei is a massive company compared to ZTE. Huawei reported more than $90 billion in revenue in 2017 – five times the amount ZTE brought in. About one in eight smartphones sold worldwide in the first quarter of 2018 were Huawei phones, according to the market analysis firm 
IDC. … 

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


B. Leeds: “The Final Stage of Export Control Reform – Revisions to USML Categories I-III”

Braumiller Law Group PLLC, 15 Jun 2018.) 
* Author: Bruce Leeds, Braumiller Law Group, Senior of Counsel. 
Export Control Reform has been underway since 2009.  The process has been to revise the U.S. Munitions List (USML) categories one by one with the goal of better defining what is controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and transferring jurisdiction of articles – particularly at the part and component level – to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  Of the 21 categories in the USML, only Categories I-III had not been revised.  Now, it has happened.  On May 24, 2018 the Departments of State and Commerce published proposed revisions to these categories in the Federal Register.
USML Cat. I covers firearms; Cat. II covers guns and armaments; and Cat. III covers ammunition.  The revisions to these categories have been affected by the Second Amendment controversies and navigating a course to acceptable revisions has been difficult.
These revisions are important because they affect the export of firearms, parts, and ammunition, but also who must register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).  Not only must exporters of articles described on the USML register with DDTC and pay an annual fee, but also companies that manufacture firearms, parts, and ammunition must register, even if they do not export.
The current text of categories I-III is broad and captures many articles bringing them under ITAR controls.  The proposed revisions of these categories would drastically change this.  The intention of the proposed revisions is to remove non-automatic and sporting firearms and associated ammunition from the USML, and transfer controls to newly created provisions in the Commerce Control List (CCL) in the EAR.  ITAR controls would remain for military and automatic firearms and ammunition specifically used in these weapons.
Some of the proposed revisions to Cat. I include the following:
  – Removal of non-automatic firearms up to .50 caliber;
  – Removal of parts, components and accessories for these firearms;
  – Inclusion of firearms that fire caseless ammunition in Cat. I;
  – Inclusion of automatic firearms of up to .50 caliber in the category;
  – Firearms specially designed to integrate fire control, automatic tracking or automatic firing systems would remain the Cat. I;
  – Silencers, mufflers and sound suppressors would remain in Cat. I, but flash suppressors are transferred to the CCL;
  – Magazines containing 50 or more rounds and components to convert a semi-automatic to an automatic firearm (both which have been in the news in recent times) would also be included in Cat. I.
Cat. II covers cannons and howitzers and thus is more specifically military in nature (and less controversial).  However, the proposed revisions would remove such items as engines for self-propelled guns and howitzers and associated tooling and equipment from the category, and transfer controls for such articles to the CCL.
Cat. III which covers ammunition is proposed to be amended to make it consistent with the changes to Cat. I.  The category will also be revised to remove some broad “catch-alls” and more clearly define what is controlled in the category.
The CCL would be amended to provide new 600-series provisions in Category 0 to capture the firearms, guns, ammunition and associated articles no longer controlled under the ITAR.  This means that exporters of firearms, guns, ammunition, and associated parts, components, accessories and technical data would need to first determine which regulations (ITAR or EAR) control their products.  If no longer controlled under the ITAR they would need to review the 600-series provisions in the CCL to determine whether their products are controlled there and, if so, whether they require a license, or if a license exception is available.
If a U.S. company’s firearms, guns, or ammunition are no longer controlled by the ITAR there would be no requirement to register with DDTC, or pay an annual fee, as the EAR has no registration requirement.  Of course, there may be a certain degree of gray area in determining whether articles are controlled under the ITAR or EAR.  A prudent company may want to obtain a commodity jurisdiction determination to find which regulations apply to its exports.
The proposed revisions to the ITAR include the subcategory (X) provision found in other revised categories.  That provision allows exporters of articles subject to the EAR to apply for a license from DDTC if those articles are to be used in or with articles subject to the ITAR.
Bear in mind that everything described here is a proposal subject to public comments.  Parties wishing to comment on the proposed amendments, or make recommendations, may submit comments or recommendations by email or through www.regulations.gov by July 9, 2018.  After close of the comment period the agencies will review the comments and recommendations and consider revisions to the proposed changes to the ITAR and EAR.  After that they could either publish another proposed rule, or a final rule, containing the finalized regulations and an implementation date.
Like the proposed changes to Cats. I-III.  Don’t like the changes?  Read, review and submit your thoughts!

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

J. Bozman, Z. Mears & S.B. Cassidy: “Senate Armed Services Committee Proposes Expansive but Unclear Software Review Provisions”

Covington & Burling LLP, 15 Jun 2018.) 
* Authors: Jeff Bozman; Zachary Mears; and Susan B. Cassidy. All of Covington & Burling LLP. 
As the Senate approaches the end of its debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, provisions of the bill regarding access to and review of information technology code deserve close attention.  These sections, if enacted, would significantly impact Department of Defense contractors and also would affect matters associated with investments subject to review by U.S. national security agencies.
As drafted, the provisions could expose current and prospective contractors to intrusive scrutiny and significant risks.  They lack clarity on key definitions, leaving the precise scope of those risks unclear.  We summarize major issues and concerns below.  We expect these provisions to receive scrutiny during the House-Senate conference on the NDAA over the summer. 
Synopsis of the Proposed Legislation
Three sections of the Senate’s version of the NDAA, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, would establish new rules designed to mitigate “risks posed by providers of information technology with obligations to foreign governments.”  Those risks involve the access that foreign governments may have to code in products or services that are offered to the Department of Defense.  The provisions also impose new disclosure requirements on the efforts of a prospective vendor to obtain a license under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”).
The pending legislation would require proactive disclosure of those matters, and would impose an ongoing duty to supplement those disclosures during the period of performance on the contract.  The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to assess and mitigate any resulting national security risks through contractual provisions or other performance requirements.
The bill directs the Secretary to create a “prioritized list of countries of concern regarding cybersecurity,” using factors designed to assess those countries’ capabilities, intentions, and past practice with respect to U.S. and “coalition forces.”  It would also require the Secretary to develop a “third-party testing standard” for commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) items “to use when dealing with foreign governments.”  Finally, the bill would require the Secretary to consolidate the disclosures in a master registry and make the information available to “any agency conducting a procurement pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulations or the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations.”
Definition Issues and Coverage Concerns 
The scope of the legislation is broad, and coverage is not clearly defined.  The disclosure requirements apply to any “product, service, or system relating to information or operational technology,  cybersecurity, an industrial control system, a weapons system, or computer antivirus” offered to the Department.
One subset of disclosure obligations applies to “custom-developed” products, systems, or services.  Any person offering such products, services, or systems must disclose “[w]hether the person has allowed a foreign government to 
review or access the code of a product, system, or service
 custom-developed for the Department, or is under 
any obligation to allow a 
foreign person or government to review or access 
the code of a product, system, or service custom-developed for the Department 
as a condition of entering into an agreement for sale or other transaction with a foreign government or with a foreign person on behalf of such a government.”
The bolded terms all raise questions.  The bill does not define “custom-developed,” which is not a recognized term of art in procurement law.  A broad interpretation could, for instance, sweep in a commercial item where the manufacturer made only a minor modification for the Department.  Presumably, if a product was custom-developed for the Department, any necessary restrictions on sharing the source code would have been imposed contractually on the manufacturer.  If such a limitation was not imposed at the time of the contract, it is not clear that the government should impose new restrictions post-agreement.
The concept of “review or access” is also open to interpretation.  For example, if a company keeps full custody of the code but allows a customer, including a foreign government, to have an authorized representative inspect the code under the company’s control, it is not clear that such an arrangement would constitute a materially risky “review,” let alone “access.”  That structure would not involve a company relinquishing control of the code, and it might not be sufficient to allow the customer/government to identify vulnerabilities.  Furthermore, a “review” that entails only an analysis of results of testing conducted by the company or an agreed-upon third party would be even farther removed from the risk, but could still be considered a “review” by a foreign government under the text of the bill.  It is unclear if the only code at issue is the code associated with a government-specific modification, or also the underlying commercial item product (
i.e., background vs. foreground intellectual property).
The term “foreign person” also invites questions about scope.  It could include employees of companies that create the product, if those employees are citizens of another country.  It could also include resident aliens, or dual citizens.  The structure of the bill implies that the term “foreign” would be interpreted broadly; unlike other sections of the bill that focus on the prioritized list of “countries of concern,” this section has no such limitation.
With respect to the “countries of concern,” a broader disclosure obligation applies to any goods or services, not just those “custom-developed” for the Department.  Under the terms of that section of the bill, offerors must disclose whether they have allowed a listed government to access source code.  While the language addressing “access or review” of source code is limited to high-risk foreign governments identified by the prioritized list, a broader prohibition applies as to products where the seller is “under any obligation” to allow any foreign person or government to review or access the product or service as a condition to entering an agreement with a foreign government or person on behalf of such a government.  “Obligation” is not defined and could be interpreted more broadly than just contractual obligations.  Whether contractual or not, in some instances, software products need to be modified to interface with a customer’s information systems.  It is unclear whether access just to the modifications to the code that may be necessary to accomplish this interface with a foreign commercial customer’s systems would trigger a disclosure requirement.
Consequently, those disclosure obligations apply to any product, service, or system, and to a broad universe of “foreign” interests.
Opacity of Procedures to Mitigate Risks
Definitional issues also arise in the context of the mitigation provisions.  For instance, the language allows the Secretary to determine whether the disclosure reveals “a risk to the 
national security infrastructure or 
data of the United States, or any national security system under the control of the Department” and then “take such measures as the Secretary considers appropriate to mitigate such risks.”  Neither legislative text nor industry-wide common understanding explain what comprises “national security infrastructure” or “data of the United States.”  The latter term could mean proprietary data of the U.S. government, or 
any data residing in the United States.
The legislation leaves practical implementation questions unaddressed.  There is no timeframe or clear trigger for initial disclosure, nor discussion of procedures for mitigation.  If the disclosure is made after contract award, the legislation could arguably give the government grounds for termination.
Other key operational questions include the following:
  – If mitigation is to be imposed pre-award in a competitive procurement, can the Secretary allow one offeror to add such mitigation to its proposal without opening discussions with all offerors?
  – Would that mitigation be reported in the “registry” along with the other disclosure elements?
  – Could mitigation include outright exclusion? If so, what is the process for aggrieved offerors to contest that exclusion, if not the normal bid protest channels?
  – Once a product is identified as a risk, is it excluded from future Department of Defense procurements, or is this determination done on a procurement-by-procurement basis? What procedural safeguards would be established to address this limit on competition?
The pending legislation also fails to identify which agency within the Department would develop and enforce these conditions.  It could be left to the discretion of each service or component, or a central agency could manage the process on behalf of the entire Department.  In that case, likely candidates would be the Defense Security Service, the Chief Information Officer, or the National Security Agency.
Export Control and Third-Party Testing Questions
The lack of precision raises other questions in the provisions on export controls and the standards to be used with third-party testing.  The bill appears to provide the Department with nearly unfettered discretion to prohibit exports of certain technology, products, or services beyond any controls imposed by the ITAR.  Even the issue of what is covered is left to the discretion of the Department.  The consequences of the resulting EAR/ITAR-related disclosures are also unclear.  Offerors are required to disclose whether they hold or have applied for any licenses, and that data will presumably be considered by the Secretary.  However, there is no indication as to 
how the Department will use that information to determine whether it will use the product, service, or system.
The third-party testing standard also raises a number of operational questions, and the accompanying Committee Report language offers few indicators of congressional intent.  If the purpose is to direct the Department to develop the standard that COTS companies can use to deal with foreign governments, it is an open question whether the U.S. government would then apply that standard to its own testing.  The provisions also offer no resolution if a disconnect arises between U.S. government requirements the standard developed by the Department pursuant to this third-party testing provision.

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

R.C. Burns: “Justice Limits What Lawyers Can Say to OFAC without Registering as a Foreign Agent”

Export Law Blog, 15 Jun 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, 
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com, 202-508-6067).
Now that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has started more actively prosecuting FARA violations, it decided to upload to its website a bunch of advisory opinions that apparently had been languishing in a file cabinet somewhere in the depths of Main Justice. Whether or not this is good news remains to be seen, but at least one of the advisory opinions given to a law firm handling a matter before the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is more than a little troubling.
advisory opinion responded to a request by an unnamed law firm that was representing an unnamed foreign company and an unnamed foreign individual in connection with the potential designation and blocking of the company and individual by OFAC. The opinion notes, rightly, that a law firm acting on behalf of a foreign company or a foreign individual would be an “agent of a foreign principal” (or as some newspaper reporters like to say, a “spy”) under section 1(c) of the 
Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, 22 U.S.C. § 611(c) and would be required to register under that act unless an exemption applies.
The discussion in the opinion then turns to the exemption in section 613(g) for “persons qualified to practice law.” That exemption expressly excludes, as the advisory opinion notes,
attempts to influence or persuade agency personnel or officials other than in the course of judicial proceedings, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiries, investigations, or proceedings, or agency proceedings required by statute or regulation to be conducted on the record.
The advisory opinion notes the further qualifications on this exclusion contained in 
section 5.306 of the FARA regulations, which limits such exclusion of activity outside the described proceedings to ”
only such attempts to influence or persuade with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.” (Emphasis added.)
Now the ordinary, indeed the only, reading of this is that contacts with agencies outside of the proceedings, inquiries and investigations described in the exemption require registration only if they are designed to influence formulating, adopting or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States. But that’s not how DOJ reads it.  Instead, the opinion states that attempts to influence policy will require registration 
even if those attempts occur during the types proceedings described in the exemption.
[T]he two primary activities you described in your letter, first [US law firm]’s representation with respect to any investigation or enforcement proceedings undertaken by the Department of Justice or another U.S. government agency involving [foreign person] or [foreign bank], and second, [US law firm]’s December 8, 2017, request to OFAC on behalf of [foreign person] and [foreign bank], that OFAC stay designation of [US law firm]’s clients until [US law firm] could present facts to OFAC, fall within the definitions set out within Section [61]3(g) FARA and its implementing regulations. In particular, the limited scope of [US law firm]’s December 8, 2017, letter to OFAC, appears to stop short of an attempt to influence OFAC’s policies regarding its sanctions regime beyond its specific application to [US law firm]’s representation of [foreign person and foreign bank]. If at any point in the future, [US law firm] engages in a discussion or exchange with OFAC that implicates wider policy or political considerations, then it would not be able to avail itself of the exemption and could be required to register.
It is significant here that DOJ starts by saying explicitly that the activities before OFAC by the law firm on behalf of the foreign company and individual are the types proceedings covered by the exemption for lawyers set forth in section 613(g). Even so, it applies the restriction on attempts to influence policy even though section 5.306 only refers to lawyers contacts with agencies outside of the types of proceedings described in section 613(g). It isn’t hard to see the difficulty here. If a law firm argues that its client has not violated any rules that require designation by OFAC, no FARA registration is required. But if the law firm argues, as might often be the case, that even if the client has violated those rules there are policy reasons that the agency should consider in exercising its administrative discretion not to designate the client, FARA registration is required. Even if that is what the act and the regulations say (and they do not), that would be stupid policy. Oops. Wait, do I have to register now?
My guess is that the law firm had an entirely different concern than whatever it was that caused DOJ to jump down the rabbit hole of limiting policy arguments. Although DOJ readily conceded that the proceeding in front of OFAC was one of the types of proceedings described in section 613(g), that really is a rather difficult question. The language in 613(g) could be read to cover agency proceedings only if they are required to be “on the record.”
Nothing in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or OFAC regulations require the determination to designate a foreign company or individual to be conducted “on the record.” Not even the rules in section 501.807 for setting aside a designation require these proceedings to be “on the record.” This is probably what prompted the law firm’s inquiry in the first place since it was attempting to influence the agency’s determination to designate its clients. a proceeding that was not arguably required to be “on the record.”  It seems DOJ here says, albeit indirectly, that the proceedings to designate were one of the type of proceedings described in the exemption for lawyers representing foreign clients and that, by implication, the exemption for lawyers covers agency proceedings that are not on the record.  But having said that, DOJ went on and, in violation of both the statute and the rules, imposed a troublesome limitation on what lawyers can do in those proceedings without registering as a foreign agent.

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


MS_a116. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings; 189 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 6 New Jobs

(Source: Editor) 

Published every Monday or first business day of the week. Please, send job openings in the following format to 


” New or amended listing this week

* ACCO Brands; Lake Zurich, IL; Foreign Trade Zone Specialist;
* Aerovironment; Simi Valley, CA; Trade Compliance Specialist II; Job ID: 18-017

* Agility; Atlanta, GA;
Export Compliance Administrator

* Agility; Queens, NY;
Air Export Coordinator
* Agility; Bensenville, IL;
Air Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Carson, CA; Ocean Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Houston, TX; Air Freight Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Houston, TX; Ocean Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Doral, FL; Air Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Boston, MA; Air Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Boston, MA; Ocean Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Bensenville, IL; Ocean Export Coordinator;

* Agility; Basel, Switzerland;
International Exhibition Coordinator;

* Agility; Genf, Switzerland; Ocean Freight Coordinator; 
* Agility; Genf, Switzerland; Ocean Freight Coordinator; 
* Agility; Coppel, TX; Air Import Coordinator;

* Agility; Carson, CA;
Air Import Coordinator;
* Agility; Bensenville, IL; 
Air Import Coordinator
* Agility; Queens, NY; Air Import Coordinator; 
* Agility; Atlanta, GA; Air Import Coordinator; 
* Agility; Doral, FL; Air Import Coordinator;

* Agility; Burlingame, CA;
Ocean Import Coordinator;
* Agility; Carson, CA;  Ocean Import Coordinator;
* Agility; East Boston, MA; Entry Writer/Import Coordinator
* Agility; Bensenville, IL; Entry Writer Coordinator; 
* Agility; Carson, CA; Entry Writer Coordinator; 
* Agility; Dallas, TX;  Air Import Supervisor;
* Agility; Montreal, Canada; Customs Manager;
* Agility; Montreal, Canada;  Customs Manager; 

* Agility; Montreal, Canada;  Customs Supervisor; 
* AMD; Austin, TX;
Manager, Import/Export; Requisition ID: 24061

* Arent Fox LLP; Washington, D.C.; International Trade Associate;

* Arent Fox LLP; Los Angeles, CA;
International Trade Associate

* Arm, Ltd.; Cambridge, UK; UK Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 13650

* Arrow; Shanghai, China; Compliance Manager;

* Arrow; Shenzhen, Guangdong, China; Junior GTMC Officer;
* AutoNation; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Trade Compliance Manager
 BAE Systems; Los Angeles, CA; 
Program Manager, International and Offset
; Requisition ID: 33778BR

* BAE Systems; Huntsville, AL; Facility Security Officer, Security Manager; Requisition ID: 36821BR
* BAE Systems; Burlington, MA; Facility Security Officer (“FSO”); Requisition ID: 35499BR
* BAE Systems; Rockville, MD; Compliance Specialist Senior; Requisition ID: 35809BR
* BAE Systems; Sterling, VA; Compliance Specialist Senior; Requisition ID: 36370BR

* BAE Systems; Greenlawn, NY;
International Trade Compliance Analyst I; Requisition ID: 

* BAE Systems; San Diego, CA; International Trade Compliance Analyst II; Requisition ID: 38548BR  

 BMW North America; Woodcliff Lake, NJ;
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 170004RD
* Brownells, Inc.; Grinnell, IA; International Trade Compliance Manager II;
* Brownells, Inc.; Grinnell, IA; Product Classification Specialist I;
* Buehler; Lake Bluff, IL;
Manager, Compliance and Logistics
; Requisition ID: 2018-004

* Cree, Inc.; Durham, NC; Export Compliance Specialist
Contact asignorelli@cree.com;
Requisition ID: 2018-630

* Danaher Science and Technology; Nijmegen, Netherlands;
Import Specialist – Senior Analyst II Supply Chain & Logistics

Job ID: BEC009349

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

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

 Eaton; Shanghai Shi, China;
Global Ethics and Compliance Director, APAC
; Requisition ID: 039260

* Elbit Systems of America; Fort Worth, TX or Merrimack, NH;
Trade Compliance Manager
; 2018-5916

# Eli Lilly and Co.; Indianapolis, IN;
Import/Export Trade Associate;

# Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Co.; Moorpark, CA;
Import/Export Specialist; Missy Clark;

* EoTech Technologies; Ann Arbor, MI; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 092335 
* Erickson, Inc.; Central Point, OR; Import Specialist; Requisition ID: 756803

 Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Clerk Import / Export
 Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom;
Customs Brokerage Clerk
 Expeditors; Dusseldorf, Germany;
Clerk, Airfreight Import

* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; 
Trade Compliance Specialist

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

* Flash Global; Mountain Lakes, NJ; 
Import Export Services Manager;

* FLIR; Billerica, MA; US Customs Analyst

* FLIR; Meer, Belgium; GTC EMEA Customs Analyst;
* FLIR; Irving, CA; 
Sr. Manager Export Compliance;

* FLIR; Nashua, NH; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst, Traffic
 FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst, Licensing
* Full Circle Compliance; Bruchem, Netherlands;
Legal Analyst, Manager

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Director, Compliance
; Requisition ID: 18549BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
 Government Regulatory Compliance SpecialistRequisition ID: 18686BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Import/Export Trade Compliance Administrator – Licensing
Requisition ID: 17968BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; Senior Director of Import/Export Compliance; Requisition ID: 13892BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; Internal Auditor – Senior; Requisition ID: 17524BR

* General Dynamics; Fairfax, VA; Export Policy Analyst; Job ID: 2018-36089 

* General Dynamics; Falls Church, VA;
Director, Trade Compliance
; Job ID: 2018-1122

* GHY International; Pembina, ND (or remote); Ocean & Air Import Coordinator
* Harris Corporation; Beaverton, OR;
Manager, International Government Relations

* Harris Corporation; Palm Bay, FL;
Technical Trade Compliance Engineer; Contact
Laura Solomon; Requisition ID: ES20171511-22019
* Harris Corporation; Clifton, NJ;
Technical Trade Compliance Engineer;

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

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

* Henkel Corp.; Rocky Hill, CT;
Global Trade Defense Information Manager; Requisition ID: 

* Henkel Corp.; Rocky Hill, CT; Senior Global Trade ManagerRequisition ID: 18000307

* Huntington Ingalls Industries; Virginia Beach, VA; 
 AMSEC-Import/Export Administrator 2
; Requisition ID: 23979BR

* Hussman; Bridgeton, MO; 
Trade Compliance Specialist;

 Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany;
Experte Export Control (w/m)
; Requisition ID: 22825
* Infineon Technologies; Melaka, Malaysia; Export Control Executive; Requisition ID: 26833
* Infineon Technologies; Porto (Maia) Portugal;  Trade Compliance Administrator; Requisition ID: 25550

* Infineon Technologies; Milpitas, CA;
Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 26988

* Infineon Technologies; El Segundo, CA;  Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 26826

* Intel; Amsterdam, Netherlands;
Trade Specialist
Requisition ID: JR0056336

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

 InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA;
ITAR Compliance Official

* Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, MD;
Assistant Director, Export Control and Facility Security;

* Johnson Controls; Milwaukee, WI;
Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 
* Johnson Controls; Lithia Springs;
Trade Compliance Specialist I; Requisition ID: 
* Lam Research Corp.; Fremont, CA;
Foreign Trade Intern

* Lam Research Corp.; Shanghai, China; 
Foreign Trade (FT) Analyst;

* Lam Research Corp.; Fremont, CA; 
Foreign Trade Data Analyst;

* Leonardo DRS; Arlington, VA;
Senior Customs & Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 87488 

* Leonardo DRS; St. Louis;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 88127, or contact 

* Lincoln Electric; Cleveland, OH; 
Trade Compliance Manager;

* Lockheed Martin; Manassass, VA; International Licensing; Requisition ID: 423306BR
* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; Import Export Compliance Coordinator; Job ID: 397600BR
* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; Export and Import Compliance Investigations Lead; Job ID: 427872BR

* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; Licensing Integration and Support; Job ID: 433056BR

* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; Regulatory Compliance Analyst Senior; Job ID: 433405BR 

* Lockheed Martin; Orlando, FL; 
Senior International Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 

* Lockheed Martin; Orlando, FL; International Licensing Analyst Sr; Job ID: 424151BR
* Lockheed Martin; Oswego, NY; Licensing Analyst; Job ID: 415717BR
* Lockheed Martin; Oswego, NY; Licensing Analyst; Job ID: 415708BR

* Luminar Technologies; Orlando, FL;
Import/Export Trade Compliance Specialist

 L-3 ALST; Orlando, FL;
Contracts Manager / Empowered Official
; Requisition ID: 093069
* L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Londonderry, NH; Purchasing & Compliance Manager; Requisition ID:096596
 L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Middle East;
International Business Development Manager – Middle East Region
; Requisition ID: 093343
* L-3; Ann Arbor, MI; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 092335

* L-3; Grand Rapids, MI;
Sr. Trade Compliance Administrator; Requisition ID: 097197

* L-3; Arlington, TX;
Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 098246

* Mattson Technology; Fremont, California;
Import/Export Compliance Analyst;

* Maersk/DAMCO; Agent de transit IMPORT – EXPORT; Job Ref.: DC-164022
* Mattson Technology; Fremont, California; Import/Export Compliance Analyst;
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 16000DYY
* Medtronic; Wash DC;
Global Trade Lawyer
; Requisition ID: 170002ON

* Meggit; Akron, OH; Manager, Trade Compliance;
* Meggit; Los Angeles, CA; Trade Compliance Officer;
* Mitchell Martin, Inc.; Dallas, Texas;
Export Regulatory Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 104405

* Moog; East Aurora, NY;
Manager, Group Trade Compliance Manager
; Amy Hanavan,   
; Requisition ID: 182102

* MTS Systems; Eden Prairie, MN;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 37841
* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2

Requisition ID

 Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2
; Requisition ID: 17022805

* Office of the Director of National Intelligence; McLean, VA;
Associate General Counsel

* Oracle; Unspecified, United States; Customs Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 18000H0N
* Orbital ATK, Inc.; Dulles, VA; Principal Import/Export Analyst
; Job ID:  JAY20182304-45242.

# Oshkosh Corporation; Greenville, WI;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 182405

* PerkinElmer, Inc.; Shelton, CT;
Systems Analyst, Trade Compliance Solutions;

* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA;
Global Trade Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 
* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA; 
Global Trade Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 115189BR 

* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA; 
Sr. Export Licensing And Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 114077BR
* Raytheon Company; Plano, TX; Import Control & Compliance Advisor; Requisition ID: 111596BR

* Raytheon Company; Tucson, AZ; 
Export Licensing And Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 

 SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 8411BR

* SABIC; Houston, TX;
Senior Analyst, International Trade Compliance

Requisition ID 8655; OR Contact: Jason Washington
* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Counsel (International Trade Compliance)
* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Sr. Export Compliance Specialist 
* Spirent; San Jose, CA;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 4088

* Tech Data Corporation; Miami, FL; 
Sr. Regulatory Compliance Analyst

* Tech Data Corporation; Clearwater, FL; Sr. Regulatory Compliance Analyst;
* Tech Data Corporation; Groveport, OH; Sr. Regulatory Compliance Analyst;
* Tech Data Corporation; Duluth, GA; Sr. Regulatory Compliance Analyst;

* Tech Data Corporation; Miami, FL; Regulatory Compliance Manager;
* Tech Data Corporation; Clearwater, FL;  Regulatory Compliance Manager;
* Tech Data Corporation; Groveport, OH;  Regulatory Compliance Manager;
* Tech Data Corporation; Duluth, GA;  Regulatory Compliance Manager;

* Teledyne Benthos; Falmouth, MA; Export Compliance Manager
* Teledyne Scientific & Imaging; Montgomeryville, PA; Contracts & Trade Compliance Administrator; Requisition ID: 6470

# Teva Pharmaceuticals; North Wales, PA; 
Senior Analyst, Customs & Trade Compliance;

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

* Trek; Waterloo, WI; Global Trade & Logistics Specialist;

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
International Trade Compliance IT Systems & Integration Mgr.
; Requisition ID: 62310BR

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID:  62176BR

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Authorizations Manager; Requisition ID: 63222BR
# United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Technology Senior Manager
; Requisition ID: 55944BR
# United Technologies Corp, Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
ITC & ACE Compliance Program Manager, ASC
; Requisition ID: 58388BR

* Varian; Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, or UK; EMEIA Trade Lead – Senior Manager Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 12301BR; Contact 
Gavin Tickner at 
* Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; Senior Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 12735BR; Contact 
Uyen Tran at
* Vigilant; Negotiable Location, USA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst

* Virgin Galactic; Las Cruces, NM; Export Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: 2018-3558
* Williams International; Pontiac, MI; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 17-0275

* Wurth Industry of North America; Indianapolis, IN;
International Trade Compliance Officer – Classification;

 Xylem, Inc.; Remote, United States;
Manager, Global Ethics & Compliance

* Xylem, Inc; Morton Grove, IL;
Trade Compliance Specialist;
* YETI; Austin, TX;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
* Zebra Technologies; Bourne End, UK; 
Trade Compliance Manager, NALA; Requisition ID: 46144
* Zebra Technologies; Lincolnshire, IL; Holtsville, NY; Mcallen, TX; Miramar, FL; Agoura Hills, CA; 
Trade Compliance Manager, EMEA; Requisition ID: 46146

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



Socrates (c.470 – 399 BC; was a classical Greek (Athenian) philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, and as being the first moral philosopher of the Western ethical tradition of thought.  An enigmatic figure, he made no writings, and is known chiefly through the accounts of classical writers writing after his lifetime, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon.)
“By all means, marry.  If you get a good wife, you’ll be happy.  If you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.” (Socrates’s wife, Xanthippe, was reputed to be a most troublesome woman.)

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

. 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.
: 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. 
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 12 Jun 2018: 83 FR 27380-27407: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)

  – 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 

: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774

  – Last Amendment: 6 June 2018: 83 FR 26204-26205: Unverified List (UVL); Correction

: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders

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

: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment: 24 Apr 2018: 3 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
  – The latest edition (30 Apr 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 websiteBITAR 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.  
, 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:
8 Jun 2018: Harmonized System Update 1809, containing 901 ABI records and 192 harmonized tariff records. 

  – HTS codes for AES are available 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 

  – 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 

, 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
. BAFTR subscribers receive a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please
contact us
to receive your discount code. 

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

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 

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


* 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 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

* 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