18-0723 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-0723 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 23 July 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.

  1. President Continues National Emergency with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations 
  2. Commerce/BIS Announces MPETAC Meeting on 7 Aug in Washington DC 
  3. ITA Seeks Comments on CS Form ITA-4096P 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. Treasury/OFAC Publishes North Korea Supply Chain Advisory
  5. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida
  6. UK Government Publishes Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order 2018
  1. Android Headlines: “ZTE in the Clear: Threatening Measure Removed from Defense Bill”
  2. Barath Shakti: “India Planning to Ease Defense Exports”
  3. Defense News: “America’s Largest Business Lobby Endorses Trump’s Arms Export Plan”
  4. DefenseWorld.net: “France To Set Up Foreign Military Sales Program”
  5. The Hill: “Dem Lawmaker Calls on Pompeo To Keep Export Restrictions On 3D Gun-Printing Software”
  6. Reuters: “Exclusive: U.S. Open to Lifting Sanctions Off Aluminum Giant Rusal – Mnuchin”
  7. ST&R Trade Report: “Lawmakers Press CBP to Issue Updated Drawback Regulations”
  1. The Firearm Blog: “ITAR and USML: What Is It and Why Should You Care?”
  2. T. McBride: “Swedish Telecom Company Pays Penalty for Sanctions Violation”
  3. T.G. Ficaretta: “Regulation of Bump Stocks: ATF Prepares to Issue Final Rule”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 176 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 48 New Jobs
  1. Full Circle Compliance Presents “Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR From a Non-U.S. Perspective”, 2 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  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 (29 Jun 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (8 Jun 2018), ITAR (14 Feb 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 



President Continues National Emergency with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations

Federal Register, 23 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
83 FR 34931: Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations
On July 24, 2011, by Executive Order 13581, the President declared a national emergency with respect to transnational criminal organizations 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, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations.
The activities of significant transnational criminal organizations have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Such organizations are increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the United States; they are increasingly entrenched in the operations of foreign governments and the international financial system, thereby weakening democratic institutions, degrading the rule of law, and undermining economic markets. These organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of other dangerous persons.
The activities of significant transnational criminal organizations continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond July 24, 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 transnational criminal organizations declared in Executive Order 13581. … 
  [Presidential Signature.]
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 20, 2018.

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


Commerce/BIS Announces MPETAC Meeting on 7 Aug in Washington DC
Federal Register, 23 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
83 FR 34826: Notice of Partially Closed Meeting: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on August 7, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
Agenda — 
Open Session
  (1) Opening remarks and introductions.
  (2) Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.
  (3) Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.
  (4) TAC Membership.
  (5) Proposed Cyber Rule circulated 6/12/18.
  (6) TAC Meeting Attendance.
  (7) Coordinate TAC Project-Draft Announcement.
  (8) Industry 4.0 and New Technologies.
Agenda — Closed Session
  (9) Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna Lewis at 
Joanna.Lewis@bis.doc.gov, no later than July 31, 2018.
  A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email. … 
Joanna Lewis, Committee Liaison Officer.

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


ITA Seeks Comments on CS Form ITA-4096P
Federal Register, 23 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
83 FR 34827: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Agency: International Trade Administration, Commerce.
  – Title: Domestic and International Client Export Services and Customized Forms.
  – OMB Control Number: 0625-0143.
  – Form Number(s): ITA-4096P.
  – Type of Request: Renewal submission. … 
  – Needs and Uses: The International Trade Administration’s (ITA) U.S. Commercial Service (CS) is mandated by Congress to broaden and deepen the U.S. exporter base. The CS accomplishes this by providing counseling, programs and services to help U.S. organizations export and conduct business in overseas markets. This information collection package enables the CS to provide appropriate export services to U.S. exporters and international buyers. … 
  The forms ask U.S. exporters standard questions about their company details, export experience, information about the products or services they wish to export and exporting goals. A few questions are tailored to a specific program type and will vary slightly with each program. CS staff use this information to gain an understanding of client’s needs and objectives so that they can provide appropriate and effective export assistance tailored to an exporter’s particular requirements. … 
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
  Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to 
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-5806.
Sheleen Dumas, Department Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

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


OGS_a14. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* DHS/CBP; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Entry/Immediate Delivery Application and ACE Cargo Release [Publication Date: 23 Jul 2018.]

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

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

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

Treasury/OFAC, 23 Jul 2018.) 
The U.S. Department of State, with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is issuing 
this advisory to highlight the sanctions evasion tactics used by North Korea that could expose businesses – including manufacturers, buyers, and service providers – to sanctions compliance risks under U.S. or United Nations sanctions authorities.  This advisory also assists businesses in complying with the requirements under 
Title III, the Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

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

EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida 

Official Journal of the European Union, 23 Jul 2018.)  

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1033 of 20 July 2018 amending for the 288th 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 organizations 

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

UK Government Publishes Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order 2018

Legislation.gov.uk, 23 Jul 2018.) 
The Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order 2018 (SI 2018/871), made on 13 July 2018, laid before Parliament on 19 July 2018, and entering into force on 13 August 2018, is available 
here. An explanatory memorandum is available 
The Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order makes provision in connection with the trade restrictions against Burma specified in Council Regulation (EU) 401/2013 and revokes and replaces the Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order 2013. The Order deals with licenses, information powers, offences and penalties in connection with the sanctions regime affecting Burma/Myanmar. It follows the EU-wide trade restrictions set out in 
Council Regulation (EU) 2018/647 of April.
Council Regulation (EU) 2018/647 was adopted by the EU Council in response to widespread, systematic, and grave human rights violations committed by the Burmese military and security forces and involved imposition of sanctions prohibiting the export to Burma of, amongst other things, dual-use goods, technology, software, and the provision of telecommunications, internet monitoring or interception services to Burma.

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


Android Headlines, 20 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
ZTE is seemingly in the clear in regards to the possibility of the Commerce Department’s crippling denial order being reinstated by Capitol Hill shortly after being revoked as stateside lawmakers removed 
a threatening measure from this year’s iteration of the United States defense bill, Reuters reports, citing a person close to the Congress. The Senate previously approved the amendment with a supermajority vote, aiming to inhibit President Trump’s ability to oppose the reversal on the matter should the Congress move forward with the idea of enacting additional punishment for the Chinese firm for violating trade sanctions placed on Iran and North Korea, then violating the settlement meant to conclude the first instance of transgressions.

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

Barath Shakti, 23 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
The Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has proposed a new scheme similar to the FMS (Foreign Military Sales) followed by the United States in facilitating sale of Indian military equipment to friendly countries. The plan, tentatively named Foreign Military Assistance is proposed to be administered by the MoD after taking inputs from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
The U.S. uses FMS program as a form of security assistance authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), and a fundamental tool of U.S. foreign policy.
A draft, currently under consultation stage between the MoD and MEA, proposes to ease the process of supplying defense equipment to strategic partners and optimize the outcomes from the current practice of just extending a line of credit to friendly countries to buy defense equipment from India and leaving the decision to shortlist and choose the platforms and navigate the complex processes in India to the recipient country alone. Often, the countries that want to utilize the generous loan offered by India find themselves battling roadblocks because of a rule that says they need to make a ‘price discovery’ in the Indian market and find their way through complicated bureaucratic processes before concluding a deal. … 
Currently, India has granted around 1.5 billion dollars as line of credit to friendly foreign countries ranging from Afghanistan to Vietnam, to enable them to purchase defense equipment from India. The list of countries also includes Bangladesh and Myanmar just to name two others. 
Separately, the MoD is in the process of setting up a specific export promotion/ facilitation body with participation from industry representatives. According to a MOD document, “the body could be in the form of a society or a not for profit company under the Companies Act. The role of the body would be to render advice to government on various export related issues, coordinate all export facilitation schemes of the government, increase awareness amongst the industry about various export facilitation measures and promotion of exports through specific marketing efforts in targeted countries.” … 

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

Defense News, 21 Jul 2018.) 
America’s largest business lobby is hailing the Trump administration’s plans to boost American weapons exports.
  “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Defense and Aerospace Export Council (DAEC) welcomes the State Department’s announcement regarding the approved implementation plan for the Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy,” council President Keith Webster said in a statement Friday.
The U.S. State Department this week announced its planned process to implement the Conventional Arms Transfer policy, which adds economic security as a factor when the government considers whether to approve arms exports. It intends for the executive branch to advocate strongly on behalf of companies exporting defense items.
Webster, who was President Barack Obama’s last director of international cooperation at the Pentagon, called the policy “a major first step toward improving government decision processes and policies.” Aerospace and defense firms rely on innovation and U.S. government support to compete on a global scale, he noted.
The export council last month offered some 30 recommendations on how to hardwire economic security and defense-industrial base considerations into the government’s international arms sale decisions.
  “We appreciate the administration’s outreach throughout this process and are pleased to see DAEC priorities in the plan, including policy changes that will improve bid timeliness while reducing costs to industries, place emphasis on economic considerations in the federal transfer decision process, and expand trade promotion,” Webster said.
The policy has attracted pushback from arms control advocates who say it risks fueling conflicts around the world and aiding regimes that do not respect human rights.
  “If the administration is serious about claims that these changes make for responsible policy, it should add much greater transparency into the arms transfer and monitoring process,” Forum on the Arms Trade’s founder and coordinator, Jeff Abramson, wrote last month.
The U.S. leads the world in arms transfers, with $47 billion expected so far this year, whereas the State Department approved $42 billion in government-to-government sales for all of 2017.
  “Defense exports are good for our national security, they’re good for our foreign policy. And they’re good for our economic security. And as the administration and our leadership has said, economic security is national security,” Lt. Gen. Charles Hooper, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said during the Farnborough International Airshow on July 18.

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

DefenseWorld.net, 9 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
France plans to set up its own version of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program under which it will offer weapons in the international market on country-to-country basis.
The French Directorate General of Armament, the Directorate of Legal Affairs, and the EMA (Military Staff, Ed) together have set up the new form of ‘state-to-state’ contract with allied countries in the framework of strategic projects. The Defense Minister Florence Parly lauded the three organizations for their contribution during her speech at Balard, 
La Tribune reported last Thursday.
The French State will sign contract and act as an intermediary between the buyer countries and the French industrialists. They will buy the military equipment from the French defense groups on behalf of the buyer country. The state will also offer guarantee to the client country. … 
The FMS arms export policy will help to consolidate France’s position on the international scene to guarantee its strategic autonomy and also strengthen the credibility of the armed forces. As part of an economic, industrial, operational and diplomatic logic, it also contributes to the financial sustainability of France’s defense policy and the development of a good level of interoperability of French military capabilities, the news report stated.

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

The Hill: “Dem Lawmaker Calls on Pompeo To Keep Export Restrictions On 3D Gun-Printing Software”
The Hill, 20 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
A Democratic lawmaker sent a letter to Secretary of State 
Mike Pompeo on Friday urging the Trump administration to halt the planned relaxation of export controls surrounding software for 3D printing machines containing designs for handguns.
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) told Pompeo that the decision would lead to the “unrestricted manufacture of firearms” around the world without the Trump administration taking action to block the move.
  “There are several disturbing aspects of the Department’s action. Foremost is the likelihood that weapons will become available to anyone with a laptop and a 3D printer,” Engel wrote.

  “With these stealthy weapons in the hands of terrorists, lone wolf killers, or mentally unstable individuals, it will become virtually impossible to protect anyone from gun violence,” he added. … 

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

Reuters: “Exclusive: U.S. Open to Lifting Sanctions Off Aluminum Giant Rusal – Mnuchin”
Reuters, 21 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.]
The U.S. Treasury is open to removing Russian aluminum producer Rusal from a U.S. sanctions list, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Friday, adding the objective was “not to put Rusal out of business.”
Mnuchin’s comment was the latest indication the Trump administration was trying to aid sanctions-hit Rusal, which has taken a series of steps to try to appease the U.S. government and get the restrictions lifted.
The U.S. Treasury in April imposed sanctions against billionaire Oleg Deripaska and the eight companies in which he is a large shareholder, including Rusal, in response to what it called “malign activities” by Russia. But the sanctions caused havoc in the global aluminum market, prompting several countries and companies to successfully lobby Treasury for a softening of the terms on Rusal.
   “The company has approached us on certain de-listing issues (from the Specially Designated Nationals List),” Mnuchin said in an interview with Reuters in São Paulo ahead of G20 finance meetings this weekend in Argentina.
  “I’m not going to go into the exact specifics of what those proposals are and where we stand on them, but, yes, if we can find an acceptable solution, that is our objective,” Mnuchin said.
  “Our objective is not to put Rusal out of business,” he added, acknowledging that Rusal was important to the global aluminum market. … 

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

ST&R Trade Report: “Lawmakers Press CBP to Issue Updated Drawback Regulations” 

Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 23 Jul 2018.)
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert, R-Wash., are calling on the Trump administration to issue regulations implementing the duty drawback provisions of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act “without further delay.”
Drawback is the refund of up to 99 percent of certain duties, internal revenue taxes, and fees collected on imports once either the imported substituted product or the article that has been manufactured from that product has been exported or destroyed. TFTEA made numerous changes to simplify the drawback law, including standardizing the time frames for filing claims and modernizing recordkeeping requirements. TFTEA also allows substitution drawback claims based on goods within the same eight-digit HTSUS number as well as claims against imports and exports that are within five years of the date of the claim. 
However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has asserted that it cannot provide accelerated payment of drawback claims under the TFTEA changes (which essentially nullifies their benefit) until calculation provisions under the implementing regulations become final. TFTEA required U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue those regulations by Feb. 24 but the rules have been held up in interagency review.

In June the Court of International Trade declined a request to order CBP to pay accelerated drawback, and in a July 19 letter Brady and Reichert said CBP’s continuing refusal to do so “has greatly complicated drawback claims.” As a result, they agreed with the CIT that the administration should issue regulations for important pieces of the package that satisfy the TFTEA mandate, such as those addressing the calculation methodology. This should be done via an interim final rule, they said, so that U.S. manufacturers can fully utilize the duty drawback program without further delay. 

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


The Firearm Blog: “ITAR and USML: What Is It and Why Should You Care?”

The Firearm Blog, 23 Jul 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
If you’ve purchased weapon lights, lasers, body armor, night vision or other “specialty equipment” related to the firearms industry, the term 
ITAR Restricted may have made an appearance on your documentation or on product websites. 
International Traffic In Arms Regulations or ITAR and the categories outlined in the United States Munitions List or USML is a way to prevent certain technologies from ending up in enemy hands and used against U.S. or Allied Forces. Zero arguments there.
The problem is that ITAR and the USML Categories are a complex set of regulations that can be unclear to even the most active export businesses and organizations. So how does ITAR effect you as an individual? Let’s attempt to boil it down.
ITAR& USML: What Is It and Why Should You Care?
First things first: 
I am not a lawyer or an export compliance specialist. Do not attempt to use this basic writeup as guidance for adherence of the laws surrounding ITAR restricted information.
The basics:
(1) What is an export?
In simple terms, anything leaving the U.S. or an outbound crossing of a U.S. border (or a functional equivalent of the border) is an export. Obviously, a U.S. business who sells tortilla chips to international customers is engaged in the business of exporting.
Less obviously, you as an individual traveler who decides to leave the U.S. for France with an IR capable flashlight, for example, is also exporting an item, even if you intend or returning to the U.S. with the IR flashlight.  For the most part, items that travel with you abroad are relatively benign and will not require a Customs Declaration. However, items that are ITAR Restricted require an export license or cannot leave our borders. … 
YOU are responsible for following all the export laws and regulations.
(2) International Shipping
Yes, you as an individual are exporting when you ship an item outside of the United States. This means that if you are selling items on online forums or marketplaces like eBay, you are responsible for following all the export laws and regulations for that particular item. … 
(3) Non-U.S. Citizens/Foreign Nationals
When it comes to ITAR controlled items, the mere fact of handing something to a foreign national could be a violation. Following the law means knowing your equipment and knowing the citizenship status of the person you are handing it to. … 
(4) Documentation, User Manuals and Technical Materials
Not only is the item you own or use ITAR controlled, but the documentation and technical specifications could also be ITAR controlled. This includes posting information online. … 
(5) What items are ITAR & USML controlled?
As technology changes, so do the laws and regulations surrounding ITAR. So what items/articles are ITAR controlled? Great question. Your owners manual or documentation should inform you of any regulations or restrictions including ITAR. But updated lists of items on the USML can be found in the Code Of Federal Regulations. 
When in doubt, ask the manufacturer before selling, transferring, shipping or traveling with a potentially ITAR controlled item. Yes, the waters are murky, but like your own safety and security, you are responsible for following the law. The federal penalties for ITAR violations are stiff but even worse is the potential for sharing advanced technology with our enemies that could be used against U.S. Soldiers or our Allies.

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

T. McBride: “Swedish Telecom Company Pays Penalty for Sanctions Violation”

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, 19 Jul 2018.) 
* Author: Thad McBride, Esq., 
tmcbride@bassberry.com, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, Washington DC.
Key Points
  – Ericsson Caused Violation by Having U.S. Party Ship Equipment to Sudan
  – U.S. Employee Facilitated Sudan Business
  – OFAC Expects Parties Conducting International Business to Have Robust Compliance Processes
In June 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
announced that Ericsson, a Swedish telecommunications company, 
agreed to pay approximately $145,000 for violating U.S. sanctions on Sudan.  Among other things, this is one of the few OFAC enforcement actions explicitly premised on a non-U.S. actor causing a U.S. company to violate U.S. sanctions.
Non-U.S. Companies Can Violate Sanctions If They Cause a Violation
According to OFAC, the violations involved Ericsson, AB (EAB), which is based in Sweden, causing a U.S. seller of a satellite hub to export that hub from the United States to Sudan.  Interestingly, in connection with EAB’s purchase of the satellite hub, an EAB employee communicated about the matter with Ericsson’s compliance department.  In those communications, the EAB employee was informed that the purchase of the satellite would violate Ericsson’s sanctions compliance policy.
Yet the EAB employee proceeded with the acquisition, with support from an Ericsson employee in the United States.  OFAC asserted that the two Ericsson employees agreed to identify “Botswana” as the destination of the satellite hub.  The EAB employee then structured the acquisition so that the satellite hub was shipped through several other countries, including with help from a third party in Lebanon, before eventually arriving in Sudan.
U.S. Employee Facilitated Transaction by Supporting the Sudan Business
It appears that, when the Ericsson U.S. employee was first contacted by his counterparts at EAB, he informed them that he could not be involved in any Sudan business.  But subsequently, he did assist his EAB counterparts by providing technical guidance related to the Sudan project.  (The U.S. employee sent one e-mail related to Sudan in which “East Africa” was listed as the subject of the e-mail.)  The U.S. employee also met in person with an EAB employee to discuss the project.
There is no indication that the U.S. employee had any role in purchasing or shipping the satellite hub to Sudan.  Nonetheless, by providing guidance and advice about the Sudan project, the U.S. employee facilitated that project and thereby violated U.S. sanctions on Sudan.  Like other U.S. sanctions programs, under U.S. sanctions on Sudan, U.S. persons were prohibited from indirectly supporting (or facilitating) a project in Sudan that the U.S. person could not engage in directly.
Conduct Occurred Well Before Recent Lifting of U.S. Sanctions on Sudan
As we have discussed in prior blog posts (see this 
January 2018 blog post), it typically takes a long time for OFAC to impose penalties for sanctions violations.  The conduct at issue in the Ericsson matter occurred in 2011 and 2012.  Ericsson tolled the statute of limitations during OFAC’s investigation of the matter.
In fact, by the time Ericsson agreed to settle the matter, U.S. sanctions on Sudan had been lifted.  However, the U.S. government does maintain export controls on Sudan under the Export Administration Regulations.  As a result, an export license is needed to export most U.S.-origin items to Sudan, even though economic sanctions have been lifted.
This illustrates one of the practical challenges for U.S. companies considering business in Sudan.  Discussions about that business and even the provision of business services are generally permitted without a license.  Actual exports of products still usually require a license.  So Sudan is not entirely open for business from a U.S. perspective.
Compliance Is Complicated, Appropriate Resources Are Needed
The compliance narrative in this matter is jumbled.  As detailed above, the Ericsson compliance department advised the EAB employee – correctly – about the potential liability associated with Sudan business.  The U.S. employee of Ericsson originally responded to requests related to Sudan by stating his inability to work on a Sudan project.  Yet both the EAB employee and the Ericsson U.S. employee proceeded with the Sudan business.
This seems on its face like a situation in which company employees went rogue.  Notably, the company disclosed the violation to OFAC, which is one reason that OFAC imposed a penalty well below the statutory maximum amount (roughly $360,000).
Yet in imposing any penalty, OFAC indicates that Ericsson could have done better.  In particular, in the press release related to the matter, OFAC states the following:
This enforcement action highlights the importance of empowering compliance personnel to prevent transactions prohibited by U.S. economic and trade sanctions.  Entities should ensure their sanctions compliance teams are adequately staffed, receive sufficient technology and other resources, and are delegated appropriate authority to ensure compliance efforts meet an entity’s risk profile.

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

T.G. Ficaretta: “Regulation of Bump Stocks:  ATF Prepares to Issue Final Rule”

Ficaretta Legal Services LLC, 23 Jul 2018.) 
* Author: Teresa G. Ficaretta, Esq., 
teresa@ficarettalegal.com, 301-353-3558; Ficaretta Legal Services, LLC.
On March 29, 2018, the Department of Justice published in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking that would clarify the Administration’s position that “bump fire” stocks are “machineguns” regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) and the Gun Control Act (“GCA”). The comment period for the proposal closed on June 27, 2018.  This bulletin provides an update on the progress made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) in reviewing the comments and the process for issuing a final rule. 
Summary of Bump Stock Proposal
FLS Bulletin dated March 26, 2018, provides a thorough summary of the proposals in the notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”). Briefly, the NPRM outlines the October 1, 2017, shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which the shooter used AR-type rifles with attached bump-stock-type devices.  The notice states that the devices were readily available in the commercial marketplace through online sales directly from the manufacturer and through multiple retailers.  To address this threat to public safety, the NPRM proposes amending the definition of “machinegun” in regulations in 27 C.F.R. §§ 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to add the following language:
For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger.  The term “machinegun” includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
The NPRM would overrule prior inconsistent ATF classifications of bump-stock-type devices so that all qualifying devices would be regulated as machineguns.  Because machineguns manufactured after 1986 may not be lawfully possessed by persons other than law enforcement and the military, once the final rule is effective all bump-stock-type devices in the hands of consumers would be contraband.  The NPRM states that consumers would have the option of destroying the devices or delivering or mailing them to the nearest ATF office.  Any such devices manufactured or imported after the effective date of the final rule must be marked, registered, transferred pursuant to ATF approval, and distributed only to law enforcement and the military.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
During the comment period ATF received over 180,000 comments.  The 
regulations.gov website indicates that 130,766 comments were submitted through the rulemaking portal.  The remainder of the comments were submitted to ATF via fax, mail, or other delivery. Comments were submitted by members of the firearms industry, industry trade groups, special interest groups, law firms, Members of Congress, veterans, victims of firearms violence, and consumers.  ATF officials advise that comments supporting the proposal to ban bump-stock-type devices outnumber the comments opposing the proposal.
Comments supporting the regulation of bump-stock-type devices state the following reasons:
  – The devices present a threat to public safety;
  – Lives would be saved if the devices are banned;
  – There is no need for consumers to have the devices because they do not improve the accuracy of firearms or provide enhancements relating to sporting use;
  – The devices are military in nature and should not be allowed for civilians; and
  – The devices allow people to circumvent the ban on civilian possession of machineguns.
Comments opposing a ban on bump-stock-type devices fall within the following general categories:
  – The devices are only accessories and should not be regulated as machineguns;
  – ATF was correct in its prior (non-machinegun) classifications of the devices and should stick with those rather than bowing to political pressure;
  – ATF has no legal authority to regulate the devices under the current statutory definition of “machinegun;
  – Attempts to regulate bump-stock-type devices as machineguns are unconstitutional; and
  – Rather than banning the devices through regulations, Congress should enact legislation.
Process for Issuing Final Rule
The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., requires federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register a general notice of proposed rulemaking and give interested persons an opportunity to submit comments thereon.  Agencies must consider and address all comments in the final rule. Even if the comments are primarily negative, agencies are free to adopt the proposals in the NPRM as long as the final rule addresses the comments and articulates a rational basis for the proposals adopted. 
ATF officials advise they have detailed additional employees to the Office of Regulatory Affairs to assist in reviewing the comments.  The agency hopes to complete their review and forward a draft final rule to the Department of Justice within the near future.  Review at Justice is likely to take several months, then the final rule will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. 
Pursuant to an 
Executive Order issued in 1993, the Office of Management and Budget has 90 days to review a final rule.  The 90-day time period may be extended once for an additional 30-day period. Once OMB approves the final rule, it will be published in the Federal Register.  The Administrative Procedure Act requires that the final rule be published not less than 30 days before its effective date, unless the agency articulates “good cause” for making it effective sooner.  If ATF publishes a final rule banning bump-stock-type devices and requiring consumers to destroy them, the agency may delay the effective date beyond 30 days.  This would afford possessors more time to comply with the destroy or surrender requirements.  Consumers who continue to possess unregistered bump-stock-type devices after the effective date will risk criminal prosecution and/or seizure and forfeiture of the devices.
Litigation Challenging the Final Rule
Another provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (
5 U.S.C. 706) sets forth the scope of judicial review when aggrieved parties file suit challenging an agency’s final rule. The statute allows a reviewing court to set aside a final rule if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, or in excess of statutory authority.  
There are rumors in the firearms community of interest in filing suit challenging a final rule banning bump-stock-type devices.  Domestic manufacturers of the devices would have an interest in challenging a ban because of the economic impact.  Consumers who currently possess the devices and are required to destroy them or face criminal prosecution would also have standing to file suit.  Finally, firearms industry groups and special interest groups representing sportsmen could participate in litigation challenging a regulation banning the devices. 
Reviewing courts applying the arbitrary and capricious standard generally give significant deference to federal agencies.  Federal courts will set aside a regulation only if there is a clear error of judgment, the agency failed to adequately explain its decision, or the decision clearly exceeds the scope of the statute.  Plaintiffs challenging a bump-stock ban will likely have an uphill battle.   Nonetheless, litigation challenging the regulation could result in a preliminary injunction that maintains the status quo and restrains ATF from implementing the regulation pending judicial review.  If so, the Administration would be prevented from banning the devices until a court rules on the merits of the case. 
The Department of Justice and ATF have expended considerable effort in rulemaking that will likely result in banning bump-stock-type devices.  Once the final rule is effective, manufacturers of the devices may be driven out of business, as there is little or no interest in such devices by the military and law enforcement.   Consumers who currently possess the devices will be required to destroy or surrender them by a specified date or risk criminal prosecution.  The final rule will result in a significant economic impact on these parties.  The benefit, according to the Department of Justice, is enhanced public safety.

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


MS_a120. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings; 176 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 48 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

* Aerojet Rocketdyne; Huntsville, AL; 
International Trade and Compliance Specialist;

* Aerojet Rocketdyne; Camden, AR;
International Trade and Compliance Specialist;

Agility; Atlanta, GA; 
Air Export Coordinator

Agility; Atlanta, GA; 
Warehouse Associate – Import/Export team

Agility; Atlanta, GA; Ocean Import Coordinator

* Agility; Bensenville, IL; Ocean Export Coordinator;

* Agility; Basel, Switzerland;
International Exhibition Coordinator

* Agility; Burlingame, CA;
Ocean Import Coordinator

Agility; East Boston, MA; 
Customs/Entry Writer Coordinator

Agility; Houston, TX; 
Air Freight Export Account Executive

Agility; Houston, TX; Ocean Export Coordinator

Agility; Queens, NY; Air Export Coordinator;

Agility; Queens, NY; Air Export Coordinator;

* Albemarle Corporation; Baton Rouge, LA; Logistics Specialist – Trade Compliance and Marine Specialist
* Amazon; Seattle, WA; Head, Global Trade and Product Compliance
* Amazon; Seattle, WA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst;

Amazon; Seattle, WA; US Export Compliance PM;

Arm, Ltd.; Cambridge, UK; Compliance Programme Manager – Legal Group; Requisition ID: 13401

* Arrow; Shanghai, China; Compliance Manager;

Augusta Westland; Philadelphia, PA;
Import Export Specialist
; Requisition ID: 1518

* BAE Systems; Rockville, MD; Compliance Specialist Senior; Requisition ID: 35809BR
* BAE Systems; Sterling, VA; Compliance Specialist Senior; Requisition ID: 36370BR

* Boeing; Zoushan, China;
Trade Compliance Manager;

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

* Curtiss-Wright; Chanhassen, MN;
Logistics & Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 2835

* Dorman Products; Colmar, PA;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist;

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

Eaton; Hungary; Manager Global Trade Management EMEA – Imports (in any EMEA location)Requisition ID: 052687

Eaton; Multiple Locations: Cleveland, Ohio; Moon Township, Pennsylvania; Eden Prairie, Minnesota; Peachtree City, Georgia; Galesburg, Michigan; Manager, Supply Chain Governance, Risk & ComplianceRequisition ID: 054321

Eaton; Reynosa, MexicoTrade Compliance SpecialistRequisition ID: 054044
* Eaton; Syracuse, NY; Global Logistics Manager; Requisition ID: 036620

* Edmonds Enterprise Services, Inc.; Washington, D.C.;
Compliance Specialist
Department of State; tmarshall@edmondses.com; (703) 778-7070

Elbit Systems of America; Fort Worth, TX; Trade Compliance Officer

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 

Expeditors; Amsterdam, Netherlands; 
Regional Compliance SME (Subject-Matter expert) Supervisor On-site

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

Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom; 
District Trade Compliance Manager

Expeditors; Detroit, MI; US Export Compliance Consultant;

Expeditors; Dublin, IE; Consultant – Customs and Trade Compliance;
* Expeditors; Dusseldorf, Germany; Clerk, Airfreight Import;

 Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Clerk, Airfreight Import

Expeditors; Plainfield, IN; District Trade Compliance Manager;

Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA, USA; Customs Compliance Coordinator;

Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA, USA; Customs Compliance Specialist;

Expeditors; Stockholm, SE; District Trade Compliance Manager;

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

* Flash Global; Mountain Lakes, NJ;
Import and Export Specialist;

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

* GHY International; Pembina, ND (or remote); Ocean & Air Import Coordinator;

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

* Harris Corporation; Van Nuys, CA; Trade Compliance Senior Specialist; Requisition ID: ES20180706-25145
* 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

Honeywell International Inc.; Sunnyvale, CA or Lincolnshire, IL; Sr. Import/Export Analyst; HRD32371

* Hussman; Bridgeton, MO; 
Trade Compliance Specialist;

* Infineon Technologies; El Segundo, CA; 
Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 26826* Infineon Technologies; Milpitas, CA;
Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 26988

Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany; Manager Export Control;

Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany; Specialist Export Control;

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

 InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA;
ITAR Compliance Official

* Interra International; Atlanta, GA;
Global Logistics Specialist;

Johnson Controls; Boca Raton, FL; Licensing Coordinator; Requisition ID: 

Johnson Controls; Boca Raton, FL; Licensing Coordinator; Rquisition ID: 

Johnson Controls; Milwaukee, WI; Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: WD30047348124

Johnson Controls; Tamaulipas, Matamoros, Mexico; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: EB00064420180

* Komatsu; Milwaukee, WI; Senior International Trade Compliance AnalystRequisition ID: 12728

* Lam Research Corp.; Shanghai, China; 
Foreign Trade (FT) 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; Arlington, VA; 
Senior International Licensing Analy
st; ID: 

Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; 
International Trade Compliance Senior Analyst
; ID: 433621BR

Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; 
International Trade Compliance Engineer
; ID: 

* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; Export and Import Compliance Investigations Lead; Job ID: 427872BR

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

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

* 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 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

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

Meggit; Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK; Trade Compliance Manager;

* Mercury Systems; Andover, MA; International Trade Compliance Director; Requisition ID: 18-165
* Mitchell Martin, Inc.; Dallas, Texas;
Export Regulatory Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 104405

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.;
DDTC Compliance Specialist II; Apply
HERE or contact their
recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.;
DDTC Policy Analyst
 or contact their 
recruiting team
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Records Auditor
Apply HERE or contact their recruiting team. 
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Contract AnalystApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Service Support Desk Lead
 or contact their 
recruiting team
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Service Support Desk
Apply HERE or contact their recruiting team. 
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IIApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IIIApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2; Requisition ID: 18010381

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2

Requisition ID


 Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2
; Requisition ID: 17022805
* Northrop Grumman; McLean, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition ID: 18012973
* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition ID: 18007859
* Northrop Grumman; San Diego, CA; International Trade Compliance Analyst 2; Requisition ID: 18012561

* Northrop Grumman; Redondo Beach, CA; or Rancho Bernardo, CA; or Melbourne, FL; or Falls Church, VA; 
Sr. Manager, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 18012105; Contact Fred Czarske at 310.332.7606,
* OCR Services, Inc.; Rockville, MD;
Business Analyst, Global Trade Compliance;

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

Optics 1; Bedford NH, Senior Trade Compliance Administrator

* Oracle; Unspecified, United States; Customs Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 18000H0N

Oshkosh Corporation; Greenville, WI; 
Ethics and Compliance Analyst; ID: 174025;

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

Oshkosh Corporation; Greenville, WI; Senior Global Trade Compliance Analyst – Licensing; ID: 

* PerkinElmer, Inc.; Shelton, CT;
Systems Analyst, Trade Compliance Solutions;
* PerkinElmer, Inc.; Shelton, CT;
International Trade Compliance Analyst – Export Coordinator
Requisition ID: 
* PerkinElmer, Inc.; Hopkinton, CT;  
International Trade Compliance Analyst – Export Coordinator
; Requisition ID: JR-001256 
* PerkinElmer, Inc.; Singapore; ITC Specialist; Requisition ID: JR-003936

Raytheon; Billerica, MA; 
Mgr I Export-Import Control
; Requisition ID: 

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

* Raytheon; Tucson, AZ; Export Licensing And Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 114936BR 
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Senior Principle, Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 117232BR 
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Manager III, Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 117235BR 
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Fullerton, CA; Goleta, CA; Aberdeen, MD; Plano, TX; McKinney, TX; Principal Analyst, Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 117247BR

Raytheon; Tuscon, AZ; 
Principal Analyst Export Licensing And Compliance
Requisition ID:

Raytheon; Woburn, MA; 
Global Trade Export Licensing & Compliance Advisor
Requisition ID:

Raytheon; Woburn, MA; Supply Chain Compliance Advisor; Requisition ID:

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

* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Counsel (International Trade Compliance)
* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Sr. Export Compliance Specialist 
* Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI); Solna, Sweden; Senior Researcher on Dual Use and Arms Trade Controls
* Spirent; San Jose, CA;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 4088

* 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;

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

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

* 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

* Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; Senior Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 12735BR; Contact 
Uyen Tran at

Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; 
Trade Compliance Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 

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

* Vigilant; Negotiable Location, USA;  
Global Trade Account Manager

* Virgin Galactic; Las Cruces, NM; Export Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: 2018-3558

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

Xylem, Inc.; Bangalore, Karnataka, IndiaThird Party Contract & Compliance Coordinator;

* Xylem, Inc; Morton Grove, IL; 
Trade Compliance Specialist

Xylem, Inc.; Pewaukee, WI; Logistics Manager/Trade Compliance;

* YETI; Austin, TX;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
* Zagg Corp.; Midvale, UT;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist

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


(Source: Full Circle Compliance,
Our next academy course is specifically designed for beginning compliance officers and professionals who want to enhance their knowledge on the latest ITAR/EAR requirements and best practices. The course will cover multiple topics regarding U.S. export controls that apply to organisations outside the U.S., such as: the regulatory framework, including the latest and anticipated regulatory amendments, key concepts and definitions, classification and licensing requirements, handling (potential) non-compliance issues, and practice tips to ensure compliance with the ITAR and EAR.
* What: Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR from a Non-U.S. Perspective
* When: Tuesday, 2 Oct 2018, 9 AM – 5 PM (CEST)
* Where: Landgoed Groenhoven, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Sponsor: Full Circle Compliance (FCC)
* Instructors: Ghislaine Gillessen, Mike Farrell, and Alexander P. Bosch
* Information & Registration: HERE or via events@fullcirclecompliance.eu  
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Rose Kennedy (Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald Kennedy, Countess Kennedy; 22 Jul 1890 – 22 Jan 1995; was an American philanthropist, socialite, and the matriarch of the Kennedy family.  HER nine children included President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and longtime Senator Ted Kennedy.)
  – “I’m like old wine. They don’t bring me out very often – but I’m well preserved.”

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

. 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: 29 June 2018: 83 FR 30541-30548: Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations; and 83 FR 30539-30541: Removal of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations and Amendment of the Terrorism List Government Sanctions Regulations 

: 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.  If you would to submit material for inclusion in the The Export/Import Daily Update (“Daily Bugle”), please find instructions here.

* 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