;

18-0831 Friday “Daily Bugle”

18-0831 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 31 August 2018

TOPThe Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, DOE/NRC, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FAR/DFARS, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events. Subscribe here for free subscription. Contact us for advertising inquiries and rates
. [N.B. The Daily Bugle will not be released on Monday, 3 September 2018, a U.S. Federal Holiday.] 

  1. Commerce/BIS Announces TRETAC Meeting on 26 Sep in Washington DC
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Certification FQ Deployment, 1 Sep
  4. DHS/CBP Announces Temporary Limitation in ACE Reports for Upgrade to SAP Business Objects Version 4.2
  5. DHS/ICE: “Colorado Woman Sentenced to 3 Years in Federal Prison for Illegally Exporting Firearms to the Dominican Republic”
  6. DoD/DSS Posts White Paper Discussing Outside Director/Proxy Holder Reform
  7. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. The National Law Journal: “Clifford Chance Hit with Civil Penalty in U.S. Justice Dept. Discrimination Case”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Letters of Credit, Food Facilities, Import Declaration”
  3. Wired: “3-D Printed Gun Blueprints Are Back, and Only New Laws Can Stop Them”
  1. A.P. Bosch & V.J.A. Goossen: “Dutch Government Presents Perspective on Recast of the EU Dual-Use Regulation”
  2. C. Duan & J. Westling: “The Judge in the Latest 3D-Printed Gun Case Got 3D Printing Totally Wrong”
  1. “9th Annual ‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export/Import Control Conference” on Oct. 16-18; Ft. Worth, TX. Customs/ Import Boot Camp, Oct 19
  2. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp” in Annapolis, MD on 11-13 Sep
  3. List of Approaching Events: 6 New Events Posted This Week
  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 (30 Aug 2018), FACR/OFAC (29 Jun 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (14 Aug 2018), ITAR (30 Aug 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. Commerce/BIS Announces TRETAC Meeting on 26 Sep in Washington DC
(Source: Federal Register, 31 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 44566: Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
 
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory
Committee (TRETAC) will meet on September 26, 2018, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania 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 transportation and related equipment or technology.
 
Agenda
 
Public Session
 
  (1) Welcome and Introductions.
  (2) Status reports by working group chairs.
  (3) Public comments and Proposals.
 
Closed Session
 
  (4) Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2
Sec. Sec. 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. Yvette Springer at
Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov no later than September 19, 2018.
 
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 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 distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email. …
 
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
 
  Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12
. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 
* Commerce; Industry and Security Bureau; RULES; Entity List; Additions, Revisions, Removals [Publication Date: 4 September 2018.]
 
* President; PROCLAMATIONS; Trade [Publication Date: 4 September 2018.]:
  – Aluminum; Adjustment of Imports Into the U.S. (Proc. 9776)
  – Steel; Adjusting of Imports Into the U.S. (Proc. 9777)

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

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

OGS_3
4. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Certification FQ Deployment, 1 Sep
(Source: CSMS #18-000508, 31 Aug 2018.)
 
Please be advised that there will be an ACE CERTIFICATION deployment of ACE Extract Reference Query (FQ) on Saturday evening, September 1, 2018, at 2200 ET.
 
To be deployed:
  – Tickets# 11333875, 11321618: FQ F111 FIRMS Query by District code should return Multiple records.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a4
5. DHS/CBP Announces Temporary Limitation in ACE Reports for Upgrade to SAP Business Objects Version 4.2

(Source: CSMS #18-000506, 30 Aug 2018.)
 
ACE Reports is in the process of upgrading from SAP Business Objects version 4.1 to version 4.2, which will result in a number of new features being available to reports users.  

In order to fully transition to version 4.2, there will be a temporary limitation to reports users. Starting at 9:00 PM on August, 31, 2018, reports users will not be able to save any changes made to current reports or save any ad-hoc reports in any ACE Reports folders. However, users will be able to export any updated reports or new ad-hoc reports in the same formats that are currently available. 

ACE Reports will return to normal operations on Monday, September 10, 2018 with the full upgrade to version 4.2. 

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause during this transition period and will publish a follow-up message soon on the new features available in version 4.2. 

Please send any questions or concerns to the Branch Chief of the Business Intelligence/Data Warehouse team, Daniel Collier at daniel.collier@cbp.dhs.gov.

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

OGS_a5
6. DHS/ICE: “Colorado Woman Sentenced to 3 Years in Federal Prison for Illegally Exporting Firearms to the Dominican Republic”

(Source: DHS/ICE, 30 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
A former member of the U.S. Army stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, was sentenced Thursday to serve three years in federal prison following her criminal conviction for illegally exporting firearms to the Dominican Republic in 2015.
 
On Sept. 1, 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Katherine O’Neal, 43, for numerous firearm and illegal financing-type criminal charges. A superseding indictment was handed down on Nov. 20, 2016, with a second superseding indictment returned on Dec. 5, 2017. A jury found O’Neal guilty of smuggling goods from the United States on March 6, 2018. O’Neal was acquitted on other counts alleging false information on firearm-purchase forms and money laundering.
 
At trial, before U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martinez, the government introduced evidence showing that O’Neal made multiple trips to the Dominican Republic shortly after purchasing firearms in Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado. On one trip she flew from Denver to the Dominican Republic with 11 firearms in her luggage in early June 2015. O’Neal declared the firearms to the airline, but did not obtain the required State Department export license. Her bags had been misdirected by the airline and were not on her flight. When the bags arrived later, Dominican Republic officials noticed the handguns while examining her baggage. When O’Neal arrived at the airport to claim her luggage, she was arrested. The Dominican Republic has a ban on all imported firearms. A Denver jury found O’Neal guilty of smuggling goods from the United States.
 
O’Neal must also serve three years on supervised release after she completes her prison sentence. …

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

OGS_a6
7. DoD/DSS Posts White Paper Discussing Outside Director/Proxy Holder Reform

(Source: DoD/DSS, 31 Aug 2018.)
 
After more than one year of research and collaboration with government and industry stakeholders, DSS has released a White Paper explaining possible reforms to the framework governing Outside Directors and Proxy Holders (OD/PH), who serve on the Boards of Directors of cleared contractors with DSS-approved FOCI mitigation agreements. OD/PH play a critical role in overseeing and protecting government interests. The goal of reforming the OD/PH framework is to empower those individuals and to strengthen their Boards. You may read the paper
here.

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

OGS_a7
8. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
(Source: State/DDTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

(Source:
The National Law Journal, 29 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
The firm, without admitting guilt, agreed to pay a $132,000 penalty, along with lost wages to three unidentified individuals, to resolve immigration-related claims tied to a document-review project.
 
In court and at the negotiation table, U.S. Justice Department prosecutors and defense lawyers from big firms often take differing views of the law. Less common is the case in which a different view of the law makes the firm, and not the client, the focus of a government investigation.
 
In court and at the negotiation table, U.S. Justice Department prosecutors and defense lawyers from big firms often take differing views of the law. Less common is the case in which a different view of the law makes the firm, and not the client, the focus of a government investigation.
 
Clifford Chance found itself in that position over its apparent misunderstanding of data-access regulations concerning the export of defense and military equipment. On Wednesday, 
the firm agreed to pay a $132,000 civil penalty, along with lost wages to three unidentified individuals, to resolve a Justice Department investigation into the firm’s refusal last year to allow dual citizens and non-U.S. citizens to work on a document review project.
 
According to the Justice Department, Clifford Chance unlawfully shut out dual citizens, along with non-citizens authorized to work in the U.S., based on the firm’s misreading of regulations that limit access to certain sensitive information. The settlement papers did not reveal the identity of the client.
 
Clifford Chance, according to the 
settlement document, restricted its staffing to U.S. citizens in a “good faith” effort to comply with the data access rules set by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
 
But the Justice Department said the regulations also allow U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, asylees and refugees to access certain sensitive information covered by those national security rules.
 
A spokesperson for Clifford Chance said the firm was “pleased to reach a settlement on this matter.” The spokesperson declined to identify the client for the document review project.
 
Justice officials said ITAR regulations do not limit sensitive information to only U.S. citizens. Indeed, the regulations also give access to U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, asylees, and refugees, the department said. The department cautioned that employers that limit their hiring to U.S. citizens without a proper legal basis run the risk of violating the Immigration and Nationality Act’s anti-discrimination provisions.
 
“Employers subject to the ITAR must be careful not to engage in unlawful discrimination against U.S. workers,” John Gore, acting assistant attorney in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a prepared statement. “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that employers do not unlawfully exclude U.S. citizens and work authorized non-U.S. citizens from employment opportunities.”
 
Clifford Chance general counsel James Paul signed the agreement for the firm, which did not admit guilt.
 
Under the settlement, Clifford Chance will be subject to DOJ monitoring and reporting requirements for two years. The firm must also train employees on the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act and inform clients who request citizenship-based hiring restrictions of the law’s requirements. …

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

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines, federal agency meetings, and other trade-related events coming up in the next week.
 
  – 4 Sep: deadline for comments to CPSC on proposal for
safety standard for stationary activity centers
  – 4 Sep: deadline for comments on
reorganization of FTZ 78 in Tennessee
  – 4 Sep: deadline for comments to FTZ Board on requests for
new, expanded production authority
  – 5 Sep: deadline for comments on proposed
new FTZ subzone in North Carolina
  – 6 Sep: deadline for comments to ITC on potential
IPR import restrictions on breast imaging devices
  – 6 Sep: meeting of BIS Materials Technical Advisory Committee
  – 7 Sep: deadline for comments to USDA on proposals to narrow
import declaration requirements for plant products

  – 7 Sep: deadline for nominations for Emerging Technologies Technical Advisory Committee

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

(Source:
Wired, 29 Aug 2018.)
 
Attorneys general from 20 states celebrated on Monday when a district court judge in Seattle extended an injunction against the sharing of 3-D printed gun blueprints online. But their victory lap was short-lived. On Tuesday afternoon, Cody Wilson, founder of the open-source gun-printing advocacy group Defense Distributed, announced he would begin selling the blueprints directly to people who want them.
 
Wilson said that while the preliminary injunction forbade him to share the files online for free, it expressly allowed him to sell them. At a news conference Tuesday, Wilson periodically stopped talking to check his phone when a new sale came through.
 
This technicality, legal experts say, really does allow Wilson to sell his blueprints. The legally tricky part is verifying that his customers are all US citizens; if not, he’ll be in violation of US export law.
 
But the distinction between selling the blueprints and uploading them online for free underscores the problems with the current legal battle against DIY guns. The current injunction came after a last-ditch effort to ban the plans, but was never the optimal way to prevent 3-D printed gun proliferation. To do that will require legislation, state or federal, expressly forbidding the downloading and sharing of DIY blueprints, as well as the actual printing of plastic guns.
 
The Limits of Lawsuits
 
The government’s case against Defense Distributed centers on export law, and a deal Wilson struck with the State Department back in July. Until July, DIY gun blueprints were considered a “deemed export” by the Department of Defense, which meant that uploading them online was the same as exporting them internationally. Wilson had argued that defining online data as an arms export violated free speech. Physical publications that make information freely available aren’t treated the same as online content; if Wilson had just published the blueprints in a magazine before uploading them, the State Department would have had no room for complaint.
 
But Wilson, a devoted cryptoanarchist, didn’t do that. His blueprints were removed from his website during a four-year legal scuffle with the State Department until this summer, when the government effectively caved by transferring the export licensing of DIY gun blueprints to the Commerce Department, which defines online data in a way that allows for Wilson to distribute his plans.
 
This was a huge victory for Wilson, who immediately reuploaded the blueprints to his website. But his success likely had more to do with ongoing export law reform than his long-running suit.
 
  “Wilson wasn’t likely to win, and the only thing that caused the change here was export control reform in moving .50 caliber or less arms to the Commerce Department,” says Clif Burns, an attorney specializing in export controls in the DC office of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, who has followed the case from the beginning. “There is no reason for us to have two export agencies. Every other country in the world has one agency that does them all,” says Burns.
 
Unlike the State Department, Commerce doesn’t define online posts as exports, and never has. With small firearms exports moving out of its jurisdiction, Burns says, the State Department had no reason to keep fighting the case.
 
  “Why fight a battle that was going to be pointless in a matter of months? So just go ahead and settle it,” Burns says. “But they were a little bit sloppy about how they settled it.”
 
Specifically, in July State approved the Defense Distributed blueprints for public release, and it temporarily removed them from the category of small firearms below .50 calibers. That second part opened the door to the case brought by 20 attorneys general, who argued-in addition to noting the security threats-that because of the category change, State had to give Congress notice before implementing the deal.
 
On Monday, US District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle found both aspects of that argument compelling enough to extend an injunction against the publication of the blueprints online. “The instability and inaccuracy of 3-D printed firearms pose threats to the citizens of the plaintiff States,” Lasnik wrote.
 
To some lawyers and gun control advocates, the intention of the injunction was clearly to keep these blueprints from being used to make guns at all. “I think [selling them] is a disingenuous workaround of the judge’s order. The core aim of the temporary injunction was to safeguard the public’s security while the legal issues are being determined. Selling the blueprints isn’t an exercise of First Amendment freedoms, but rather a subversion of a lawful judicial order,” says Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown Law, who specializes in public health law.
 
But while that may have been the spirit of the lawsuit, and the injunction, nothing in the case precludes the sale of those same prints to US citizens in the United States. And it never did.
 
  “The files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States,” Lasnik wrote in the decision Monday.
 
In fact, because the case against the blueprints has always hinged on export law, Wilson could have sold them legally within the United States all along. “For many years I chose not to sell these files. I was an open source advocate,” Wilson said at his Tuesday press conference. He’s selling them now for a suggested price of $10, though he will allow people to pay whatever they want, even as little as a penny. To avoid any accusation that he’s uploading them to the internet, Wilson will the put the prints on flash drives and mail them to customers. He also requires customers to click a box certifying that they are US citizens, but appears to take no further action to verify their citizenship.
 
  “The whole issue was saying he couldn’t export these plans. And what he’s saying is that has nothing to do with my domestic distribution of these plans. ‘That’s never been controlled and I can do that,’ and he’s dead right on that as long as he only gives them to US citizens,” agrees Burns.
 
Far From Over
 
Wilson is not selling the blueprints in Washington, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts or any of the 20 states whose AG’s brought the case against him. If you try to order them on his website and put an address in any of those states, you’re shown the following message: “451: Oops. You’re behind the blue wall. Your masters say you can’t be trusted with this information. Sorry, little lamb.”
 
Each of these states has its own gun laws, which Wilson expects will explicitly ban the sale of blueprints within their borders, if they don’t already.
 
  “Selling these files into Pennsylvania violates both our state law and the agreement Defense Distributed reached with the Commonwealth before Judge Diamond on July 29. Putting untraceable weapons in the hands of criminals presents a clear public safety threat to Pennsylvanians, which is why I am exploring all of my legal options to stop these sales,” said Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro in a statement to WIRED.
 
Washington State attorney general Bob Ferguson put the ball in the Trump administration’s court. “Because of our lawsuit, it is once again illegal to post downloadable gun files to the internet,’ Ferguson said in a statement. “I trust the federal government will hold Cody Wilson, a self-described ‘crypto-anarchist,’ accountable to that law. If they don’t, President Trump will be responsible for anyone who is hurt or killed as a result of these weapons.”
 
To really stop these blueprints from becoming untraceable ghost guns in the US, state and federal governments need to outlaw the sale and distribution of the plans for plastic guns directly, irrespective of their export status. “This gerrymandered system of doing it through the export control laws doesn’t make any sense,” says Burns. “Frankly, what that does is say that we are worried that we are putting these plastic guns in the hands of French citizens but we can’t control whether that’s being done in the United States or not.”
 
For now, the blueprints are for sale in 30 states. Proceeds from the sales will go to paying Wilson’s legal fees, which will continue to be considerable-and if it turns out he sells the plans to any non-US citizens or anyone outside the US, they’ll be even higher.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a1
12. A.P. Bosch & V.J.A. Goossen: “Dutch Government Presents Perspective on Recast of the EU Dual-Use Regulation”

(Source: Full Circle Compliance, 31 Aug 2018.)
 
* Authors: Alexander P. Bosch, Senior Associate, apbosch@fullcirclecompliance.eu; and Vincent J.A. Goossen, Program Manager, vjagoossen@fullcirclecompliance.eu. Both of Full Circle Compliance; assistant editors of the Daily Bugle.
 
On 29 August, the Dutch Secretary of Foreign Trade and Development  informed the Dutch House of Representatives (“de Tweede Kamer“) about the current state of and the position of the Netherlands concerning the recast of Council Regulation 428/2019 (“the Dual-Use Regulation”) [FN/1].
 
A proposal for the recast was presented by the European Commission on 28 September 2016. The aim of the proposed recast is to modernize and strengthen the regulations. The most relevant update concerns the strengthening of controls on cyber surveillance technology in order to enhance human rights protection. The EU commission’s aim is also to create a more equal playing field and enhance transparency.
 
Below is a summary and unofficial translation of the letter to the Dutch House of Representatives:
 
The Dutch Position: Export Controls as a Foreign Policy Tool
 
The Dutch position is that the EU Dual-Use Regulation has proven itself over the years as a well-functioning export control framework for the European export control authorities. The Netherlands sees “added value” in a revision and modernization of the regulation. In this review, the Netherlands will focus on the following components.
 
Adding Cybersurveillance Technology
 
The Netherlands considers the broadening of export control to include cybersurveillance technology as necessary. The Dual-Use Regulation is considered to be the appropriate instrument to achieve this. Cybersecurity is viewed as a growing threat to the stability of countries and becomes a more relevant theme for a secure world. An increased amount of data is stored digitally, interlinked, and shared via internet connections. This offers opportunities for trade, freedom of expression, political participation and democratization. However, there is also a downside. In a growing number of countries, governments restrict or forbid access to the internet. Some governments also follow the digital footprints of human rights activists as to trace and prosecute them. The threats of cyber-crime, cyber espionage, and digital warfare increase as well. Such topics require an EU-wide approach and the Netherlands sees export control as one of the ways to do so.
 
The European Commission’s proposal still requires further elaboration on the cyber theme as to clearly define the concept of cybersurveillance technology and of the human rights that can be violated by it. It is essential to provide clear and predictable framework for the business community in this effort.
 
The Netherlands considers an export control system most effective when it is based on three pillars:
 
(1) 
Working on the basis of a control list,
(2) 
The safety net of the ad hoc license requirement;
(3) 
Corporate social responsibility.
 
In the revision of the regulation and the implementation of the aforementioned extension to cybersurveillance technology, the Netherlands determines its commitment on the basis of these three pillars.
 
(1) Implementation Control Lists
 
The Netherlands is committed to work towards a control list for cybersurveillance technology. Such a list provides clarity to companies and export control authorities and brings legal certainty.
 
With the introduction of an EU control list for cybersurveillance technology, the EU will deviate from the lists used by multilateral export control regimes. The Netherlands is committed to safeguarding the international level playing field as well as possible by continuing to work on control through the appropriate international regimes and to deviate as little as possible from the existing export control system. However, among the participating states of the multilateral export control regimes, there is currently no consensus for export control on cybersurveillance technology. At the same time, the Netherlands believes that the risks of human rights violations due to c cybersurveillance technology must be overcome and sees a role for the EU as a leader on this issue. Overcoming the risks of human rights violations weighs heavier than maintaining the international level playing field for the Netherlands.
 
(2) Ad-Hoc License Requirement
 
Technology is developing at high speed, so a control list will never be entirely able to keep pace. The Netherlands sees the ad-hoc license requirement (or “catch-all” instrument) for goods that are currently not on control list, as essential for an effective export control system. Therefore, the Netherlands also wants to use the ad-hoc licensing obligation for cybersurveillance technology. This tool enables Member States to act quickly and purposefully on information about non-controlled cybersurveillance technology, which shows that this technology may be used in human rights violations.
 
The catch-all instrument has shown itself useful in the current Dual-Use Regulation and enables the Dutch government to act in special cases in the case of high-risk exports of non-controlled goods. With regard to the catch-all instrument for cybersecurity technology, the Netherlands receives little support from other EU member states. The reason for this is the uncertainty in the industry about how this tool will work out in practice for cybersurveillance technology. The Netherlands tries to increase the support of other member states in bilateral consultations.
 
(3) Corporate Social Responsibility
 
Companies taking their international corporate social responsibility is considered by the Dutch government as the third pillar of an effective export control system. The Dutch export control authorities regularly consult with companies to point out the risks that exports may entail. It underlines that companies have their own social responsibility, must be aware of the potential safety risks of their exports and act accordingly.
 
The Netherlands requires companies to issue an Internal Compliance Program (ICP) for global export licenses, which, among other things, address the risk of human rights violations in the export of cyber-surveillance goods. The Netherlands considers it desirable that corporate social responsibility is explicitly mentioned in a revised Dual-Use Regulation. The European Parliament has already introduced the term “due diligence” (an approach taken from the OECD guidelines for multinational companies and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) in its Position on the matter. The Netherlands can support such an addition, provided that it remains sufficiently clear what is expected from exporters.
 
Two other elements from the Dutch position are the following.
 
A Level Playing Field Within The EU
 
Promoting a level playing field within the EU is undiminished a Dutch priority in the negotiations on the revision of the Dual-Use Regulation. The Netherlands, therefore, supports the Commission’s proposal to level license periods within the EU and to introduce a mandatory Internal Compliance Program (ICP) when applying for global export licenses, which is already practice in the Netherlands.
 
Transparency
 
The EU Commission requests more and more extensive reports from the EU Member States on exports that have been licensed and on rejected license applications. The Commission also wants EU Member States to share more information about cases in which the ad-hoc license requirement is invoked. The Netherlands states that it can only support the Commission’s efforts if this is done within the existing frameworks for sharing state secret and company-sensitive information. The Dutch practice is already characterized by a high degree of transparency towards the public and the Dutch Parliament. An example of this is the monthly and annual arms export reports that are published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands is still not convinced of the usefulness and necessity of more reports and wants to limit the increase in administrative burden as much as possible. The new regulation must be effective, clearly written, and executable for industry and governments.
 
Slow Negotiations in the Council
 
The negotiations in the Council require a lot of time in view of the technical nature of the subject. The Council is aware of the fact that the European Parliament has already taken a position [FN/2]. The Netherlands is working in various ways to keep the progress in the discussions at a pace. For example, the Netherlands, together with a number of other EU member states, has taken the initiative to conduct informal discussions in parallel with the Council, with the aim of making the discussions in the Council as smooth as possible. The Netherlands writes position papers, and provides, as one of ten Member States, each time written comments and text suggestions on the Commission proposal. The Netherlands sends experts to Brussels to participate in technical consultations. It also scheduled a number of bilateral talks at the end of the summer to emphasize, once again, the importance of cybersecurity technology and human rights in the Dual-Use Regulation and to find a way forward in the Council discussions.
 
In the Council a dichotomy has become visible in recent months [FN/3]. There is a group of like-minded EU member states that can support the expansion to control cybersurveillance technology within the Dual-Use Regulation. The Netherlands is part of this group. However, other member states believe that this issue must be tackled on a national level through national measures. However, such national measures are a last resort for the Netherlands, measures on a topic such as this are particularly effective if they are designed and implemented in a comprehensive manner. The European Parliament supports an approach at the EU level and is not in favor of solely national measures in the EU Member States on this issue.
 
The Netherlands works together with a number of other EU Member States to maintain the momentum and to come to a Council position with the current European Parliament. The Netherlands wants to adequately tackle new threats from cyber-surveillance technology. A strong EU export control framework is part of that approach. The modernization of the Dual-Use Regulation is necessary to accomplish this.
 
————-

  [FN/1]
Kamerbrief inzake stand van zaken omtrent de onderhandelingen over de dual use-verordening binnen de EU, 29 August 2018, available


here
.

  [FN/2] Reference P8_TA-PROV (2018) 0006, available here.
  [FN/3] In January 2018, eleven EU Member States (Germany,
Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain)
signaled their support for the EU Commission to draft rules that would place export restrictions on companies selling surveillance technologies, according to a leaked negotiating document obtained by EURACTIV.com. See here.

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

(Source:
Slate, 30 Aug 2018.)
 
* Authors: Charles Duan, Director for Technology and Innovation Policy, cduan@rstreet.org, +1 202-900-8247; and Jeffrey Westling, Technology and Innovation Policy Associate. Both from the R Street Institute.
 
On Monday, a federal court in Washington state blocked Cody Wilson and his company Defense Distributed from putting his 3D-printed gun schematic online. The court’s order-the latest in a years-long legal tussle that has picked up this summer-largely focuses on government rulemaking procedures, but a number of times it has to consider how technology works. When it does, it manages to get the technology remarkably wrong.
 
Perhaps the most comical of these is when the decision considers whether letting the schematic go online will cause “irreparable harm.” Most of the files are already online, Wilson’s attorneys argued, so what’s the harm in putting them up yet again? Yet the court disagreed, saying those online copies might be hard to find-only “a cybernaut with a BitTorrent protocol” could locate them “in the dark or remote recesses of the internet.”
 
Put aside that those “dark or remote recesses” are websites with URLs literally written on court filings in front of the judge. Put aside that the websites are accessed by HTTP, not BitTorrent. Put aside that “cybernaut” is Web 1.0 terminology that peaked in 1999. The phrasing “cybernaut with a BitTorrent protocol” is just grammatically weird. A protocol is computer-speak for a language-not the sort of thing one can possess. One can have a BitTorrent application, but not a BitTorrent language. Plus, no one uses the indefinite article “a” in front of a language. To a computer scientist, it’s like referring to Noah Webster, armed with an English.
 
Other errors in the decision are deeper and more fundamental. The law that supposedly prohibits the posting of the schematic is an export control law, the Arms Export Control Act, so nothing stops Wilson from distributing the schematic inside the United States. But posting the gun schematic online necessarily exposes it to foreign countries, according to the court, because “the internet is both domestic and international.”
 
Yet anyone who has used the internet in the last decade knows that it is not so international today. Streaming video sites regularly have different offerings per country. Corporate websites often redirect users to different sites based on location. Indeed, there are freely available code snippets for blocking users by country. Certainly skilled users can get around location-based blocking, but they are at least at the skill level of BitTorrent-cybernauts who could also find the schematics elsewhere.
 
Perhaps the judge can’t be faulted for that error-none of the lawyers appear to have proposed country-based blocking-but one would expect the court to know how harmful 3D-printed guns actually are, in a case about the harm of 3D-printed guns. That does not appear to be the case. The judge assumes that once the schematic is out, plastic guns will show up everywhere due to the “portability and ease of a manufacturing process”-that is, 3D printing-“that can be set up virtually anywhere.”
 
In fact, making a plastic gun is not as easy as just hitting File-Print. First, most consumer-grade 3D printers currently on the market would print duds, because the plastic that they use cannot reliably handle the intense pressure created when firing a bullet. Printers that can handle the job are not cheap: $10,000 or more according to one expert. And even the schematic and a quality printer are not enough, because 3D printing is a notoriously finicky process. Without technical expertise on how 3D printers work, you’re more likely to end up with an exploding gun than a working one. In other words, Wilson’s schematic does not suddenly enable portable, easy gun-printing setups virtually anywhere.
 
This last mistake reflects an unfortunately systemic problem in government and society: People assume that new technology is perfect and ubiquitous for its worst uses, and unusable and rare for its best. It will be difficult to shake society of this tendency, perhaps attributable to the recent rise in dystopian literature. The best that can be done, then, may be to educate government on technology. When things like the internet and 3D printing do not feel so foreign either in Washington, D.C., or in federal courts, lawmakers and judges may be less worried that such things spell out doom for everyone except the cybernauts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
14. “9th Annual ‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export/Import Control Conference” on Oct. 16-18; Ft. Worth, TX. Customs/ Import Boot Camp Oct. 19.


(Source: A.E. NicPhaidin, Info@PartneringForCompliance.org)
 
* What: The 9th Annual “Partnering for Compliance™” West will focus intensely on a broad spectrum of export/import regulatory and compliance matters of current relevance to companies and individuals involved in global trading. Senior-level government officials and trade experts will provide first-class training.
* Where: Dallas-Fort Worth Marriott South Airport Hotel (completely renovated)
* When:
  – Tue – Thurs, 16-18 Oct: “9th Annual ‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export Control Program
  – Fri, 19 Oct: 1-Day Program “Customs/Import Boot Camp”
* Speakers confirmed: DoS/DDTL: Terry Davis & Audra Collins; DoS/DDTC: Jae Shin; DoC/BIS: Bryce Bewley & Mary Quach & OEE James Fuller; DoD/DTSA: Ken Oukrop; OFAC: Anthony D. Musa (Licensing) & Michael Szustakowski (Enforcement); Census Bureau: Dale Kelly; DHS/CBP: O’Ruill D. McCanlas; ICE: Dean Fittz; UK/EU: David Hayes Export Controls; Imports: Braumiller Law Group PLLC: Adrienne Braumiller & Bruce Leeds; and U.S. trade.
* Opening Keynote Address: TBA (Invited)
* Cost: Export 3-day program: $650. Customs/Import 1-day program: $250. Both programs: $900.
* Remarks: Maximum capacity is 200 participants to maintain informal and collaborative environment.
* As time permits, all Government and trade speakers will informally hold short “one-to-one” meetings with participants on a “first-come, first-served” basis.
* Certificates of Completion granting: 4.5 IIEI CEUs and 20
CES NCBFAA Credits for 3-day Exports program, and 6.5 CCS NCBFAA Credits for 1-day Customs/Import Boot Camp will be awarded for each program.
* More information: Here.


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

TE_a2
15. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp” in Annapolis, MD on 11-13 Sep
(Source: Suzanne Palmer, spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com)
 
* What: The ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp, Annapolis, MD
* When: September 11-13, 2018
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Timothy Mooney, Commerce/BIS; Matt Doyle, Lockheed; Matt McGrath, McGrath Law, Scott Jackson, Curtiss-Wright, Suzanne Palmer & Mal Zerden.
* Register here for the three-day event or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com 


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

TE_a3
16. 
List of Approaching Events: 6 New Events Posted This Week
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

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

#” = New or updated listing  

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

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

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

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

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

  


*
Sep 3: Edinburgh, UK; “
Intermediate Seminar
“; UK Department for International Trade
*
Sep 4: Edinburgh, UK; “
Beginner’s Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Sep 4: Edinburgh, UK; “
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military
“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Sep 4: Edinburgh, UK; “
Licenses Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Sep 4: Leeds, UK; “
Methods of Payment & Letters of Credit
; Chamber International

*
 Sep 4: London, UK; “
An Introduction to Exporting
“; UK Institute of Export and International Trade

*
Sep 5: Aberdeen, UK; “
Beginner’s Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

Sep 5: Aberdeen, UK; “
Intermediate Seminar
“; UK Department for International Trade
*
 Sep 6: Aberdeen, UK; “
Licenses Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

* Sep 11-13: Annapolis, MD; “
ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp Global Trade Academy
“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)

* Sep 11-13: Detroit, MI; “
Export Controls Specialist Certification
“; Global Trade Academy 

*
Sep 11: Leeds, UK; “
Export Documentation and Export Procedures
“; Chamber International

* Sep 12: Buffalo, NY; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

* Sep 12: Melbourne, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense

* Sep 12-13: Springfield, RI; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 12-19: Chicago, IL; “Import 5-Day Boot Camp“; Global Trade Academy 
* Sep 13: Buffalo, NY; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Sep 13: Frankfurt, Germany; “BAFA/U.S. Export Control Seminar 2018“; 
* Sep 13-17: Galveston, TX (Cruise); “ICPA @ SEA!“; International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Sep 16-19: Atlanta, GA; “2018 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
* Sep 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Import Compliance“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 17-20: Columbus, OH; “University Export Controls Seminar at The Ohio State University in Columbus“; Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI); jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Sep 17-21: Los Angeles, CA; “Import 5-Day Boot Camp“; Global Trade Academy  
* Sep 18: Anaheim, CA; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

Sep 18: Kontich, Belgium; “
Export Controls Master Class
“; Customs4Trade

* Sep 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Tariff Classification for Importers and Exporters“; Global Trade Academy 
* Sep 19: Washington, D.C.; “DDTC In-House Seminar“; Department of State (Registration: Aug 10 – Aug 31; first come, first served)
* Sep 19: Los Angeles, CA; “NAFTA and Trade Agreements“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 19-20: Rome, Italy; “Defense Exports 2018“; SMi

* Sep 19-20: Los Angeles, CA; ”
Complying With U.S. Export Controls“; BIS

* Sep 20: Pittsburgh, PA; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Sep 20: Los Angeles, CA; “Country and Rules of Origin“; Global Trade Academy

* Sep 20: Mountain View, CA; “
Assist Valuation: What Every Import Professional Needs to Know
“; Professional Association of Exporters and Importers

* Sep 21: Los Angeles, CA; “Customs Valuation – The Essentials“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 21: Pittsburgh, PA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Sep 21-24: Detroit, Michigan; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys 

*
 Sep 24: Seligenstadt, Germany; “
Follow-Up Fachtagung
“; FALEX

* Sep 25-26; Chicago, IL; ”
Financial Crime Executive Roundtable“; American Conference Institute
* Sep 25: Kansas City, MO; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

*
 Sep 25: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting & Incoterms
“; Chamber International

*
 
Sep 25-26: San Francisco, CA; “
11th West Coast Conference on FCPA Enforcement and Compliance
“; American Conference Institute

* Sep 25-26: Toronto, Canada; ”
4th Forum on Economic Sanctions and Compliance Enforcement“; C5 Group

* Sep 26: Kansas City, MO; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Sep 26: McLean, VA; “EAR Basics“; FD Associates 
* Sep 26: Oxford, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 28: Anaheim, CA; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

* Oct 2: Bruchem, Netherlands; “Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR From a Non-U.S. Perspective“; Full Circle Compliance

*
 Oct 2: Leeds, UK; “
Export Documentation
“; Chamber International

* Oct 2: Manchester, UK; “E-Z CERT: 
How To Process Your Export Documentation Online
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce;

* Oct 3: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual-Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 4: London, UK; “Making better License Applications“; UK Department for International Trade

* Oct 5: Boston, MA; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
* Oct 5: Boston, MA; “ Incoterms: A Strategic Approach“; International Business Training
* Oct 9: New Orleans, LA
; “
Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar
“; International Business Training

* Oct 10: Manchester, UK; “
Export Documentation Training Course
“; Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

*
 Oct 10: New Orleans, LA; “Tariff Classification Seminar“; Global Learning Centre

* Oct 11: New Orleans, LA; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

*
 Oct 11: Rotterdam, NL; “
Trade Compliance Congres
“; SDU, Customs Knowledge, and EvoFenedex

* Oct 12: New Orleans, LA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
* Oct 15-19: Chicago, IL; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy
* Oct 16-18: Dallas, TX; “Partnering for Compliance West Export/Import Control Training and Education Program“; Partnering for Compliance

* 
Oct 16: Kontich, Belgium; “
Export Control Compliance Basics
“; Customs4Trade

* Oct 17: Manchester, UK; “
Understanding Tariff Codes
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
* October 17-18; Miami/Fort Lauderdale, FL; “11th Maritime Forwarding, Freight Logistics & Global Chain Supply Workshop“; ABS Consulting; albert@abs-consulting.net; 954 218-5285
 

* Oct 18-19: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates
* Oct 19: Dallas TX; “
Customs/Import Boot Camp
“; Partnering for Compliance
* Oct 21-23: Grapevine, TX; “2018 Fall Conference“; International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Oct 22-26: Dallas, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys
* Oct 22-23: Arlington, VA; “2018 Fall Advanced Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)

* Oct 23: Adelaide, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense

*
 Oct 23: Kontich, Belgium; “
Export Control Compliance Basics
“; Customs4Trade

* Oct 24: Leeds, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 26: Louisville, KY; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
* Oct 26: Milwaukee, WI; “Incoterms: A Strategic Approach“; International Business Training 
* Oct 29 – Nov 1: Phoenix, AZ; ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Oct 29: Seattle, WA; ”
Export Compliance & Controls 101“; Global Trade Academy

* Oct 30 – Nov 1: Seattle, WA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy

Oct 30: Singapore; “
4th Asia Summit on Economic Sanctions
“; American Conference Institute

*
 
Oct 31 – Nov 1: Singapore;
” 7th Asia Summit on Anti-Corruption“;
American Conference Institute


* Nov 6: Detroit, MI; “Classification: How to Classify Parts“; Global Trade Academy

* Nov 6: Manchester, UK; “Export Control Symposium Autumn 2018“; UK Department for International Trade


* Nov 7: Detroit, MI; ”
Advanced Classification of Machinery and Electronics“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 7: Manchester, UK; “
Understanding Incoterms
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* Nov 7-9: London, UK; “TRACE European Forum, 2018“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Nov 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Advanced Classification for Machinery & Electronics“; Global Trade Academy

*
 Nov 8-9: Shanghai, China; “
ICPA China Conference
“; International Compliance Professionals Association

* Nov 12-15: Washington, D.C.; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Nov 13: Tysons Corner, VA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 14: Manchester, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: McLean, VA; “ITAR For the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Nov 16, San Diego, CA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training

* Nov 20: Manchester, UK; “
How to Claim Duty Relief on Export and Import Processes
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* Nov 20: Sydney, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense;

* Nov 21: London, UK; “Cyber Export Controls“; UK Department for International Trade

* Nov 21: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Exporting
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
 

* Nov 27: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Dec 3-7: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy 
* Dec 4-5: Frankfurt, Germany; “US Defence Contracting and DFARS Compliance in Europe;” C5 Group
* Dec 5: London, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade

*
 Dec 6: London, UK; “
Beginner’s Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trad

* Dec 6: London, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade

*
 Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Export Documentation Training Course
;” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Export Controls and Licenses
“; 
* Dec 14: Philadelphia, PA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
 
2019
 

* Jan 6-7: Long Beach, CA; ”
Fundamentals of FTZ Seminar“;
* Jan 21-24, 2019: San Diego, CA; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar”; ECTI; 540-433-3977

#
Jan 30-31: Washington, DC; “
5th National Forum on CFIUS
;” American Conference Institute (ACI)

* Feb 6-7: Orlando, FL; “
Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance
“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)

* Feb 12-13: Washington, D.C.; “
2019 Legislative Summit
“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 

* Mar 26-27: Scottsdale, AZ; “
Seminar Level II: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities
“; Export Compliance Solutions
 

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


 

* Sep 6: Webinar; “University Export Controls Program: Strength in Numbers“; 
ECTI; 540-433-3977
* Sep 
19: Webinar; “
International Logistics
“; International Business Training
 

* Sep 24: Webinar; “Tariff Classification: Using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule; International Business Training
* Sep 25: Webinar; “NAFTA Rules of Origin“; International Business Training 

#
Sep 25: Webinar; “
Meeting CBP’s Informed Compliance and Reasonable Care Standards
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R)

* Sep 26: Webinar; “
US Antiboycott Regulations: Clarified & Demystified
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

#
Oct 2: Webinar; “
Mitigating Section 301 Duties With First Sale Customs Valuation
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R)
#
Oct 10: Webinar; “
Advanced Classification, Part 2
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R)

* Oct 15: Webinar; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale
“; International Business Training  
* Nov 14: Webinar; “An Export Commodity Classification Number – ECCN“; Foreign Trade Association
* Dec 3: Webinar; “Tariff Classification: Using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule; International Business Training 

* Dec 4: Webinar; “NAFTA Rules of Origin“; International Business Training 
* Dec 5: Webinar; “Import Documentation and Procedures“; International Business Training
* Dec 11: Webinar; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale
“; International Business Training 

* Dec 20: Webinar; “International Logistics
“; International Business Training  
 

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a117
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)
* Elizabeth Stuart Phelps (Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward (31 Aug 1844 – 28 Jan 1911; was an early feminist American author and intellectual who challenged traditional Christian beliefs of the afterlife, challenged women’s traditional roles in marriage and family, and advocated clothing reform for women.)
  – “What an immense power over the life is the power of possessing distinct aims. The voice, the dress, the look, the very motion of a person, define and alter when he or she begins to live for a reason.”
 
* Lily Tomlin (Mary Jean “Lily” Tomlin; born September 1, 1939; is an American actress, comedian, writer, singer, and producer. Tomlin began her career as a stand-up comedian, and performing Off-Broadway during the 1960s. Her breakout role was performing as a cast member on the variety show, Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, from 1969 until 1973.)
  – “I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain.”
 
Friday funnies:  Homographs, homophones, and heteronyms
 
Homographs are words of same spelling but with more than one meaning.  Homographs that are pronounced differently are heteronyms.  Homophones are words that hae the same sound as another word but are spelled differently and have a different meaning.
  (1) The bandage was ‘wound’ around the ‘wound’.
  (2) The farm was used to ‘produce’ ‘produce.’
  (3) The dump was so full that it had to ‘refuse’ more ‘refuse.’
  (4) We must ‘polish’ the ‘Polish’ furniture.
  (5) He could ‘lead’ if he would get the ‘lead’ out.
  (6) The soldier decided to ‘desert’ his ‘dessert’ in the ‘desert.’
  (7) Since there is no time like the ‘present,’ he thought it was time to ‘present’ the ‘present.’
  (8) A ‘bass’ fish was painted on the head of the ‘bass’ drum.
  (9) When shot at, the ‘dove’ ‘dove’ into the bushes.
  (10) I did not ‘object’ to the ‘object’.
  (11) The insurance was ‘invalid’ for the ‘invalid’.
  (12) There was a ‘row’ among the oarsmen about how to ‘row’.
  (13) They were too ‘close’ to the door to ‘close’ it.
  (14) A buck ‘does’ funny things when ‘does’ are present.
  (15) A seamstress ‘sewer’ tripped and fell into a ‘sewer’ line.
  (16) To help with planting, the farmer used his ‘sow’ to ‘sow’.
  (17) The ‘wind’ was too strong to ‘wind’ the sail.
  (18) Upon seeing the ‘tear’ in the painting, I shed a ‘tear’.
  (19) I had to ‘subject’ the ‘subject’ to a series of tests.
  (20) How can I ‘intimate’ this to my most ‘intimate’ friend?

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

EN_a218. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  The latest amendments to applicable regulations are listed below.
 


ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 
81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm. 
 

CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – 
Last Amendment:
12 Jun 2018: 83 FR 27380-27407: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)
 
DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M

  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2
: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary 
here
.)


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

  – 
Last Amendments:
30 Aug 2018: 83 FR 44216-44228: Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations Based on the 2017 Missile Technology Control Regime Plenary Agreements 

 

FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 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 

 

FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30  

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

  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
  –
The latest edition (30 April 2018) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR contains all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word every time the FTR is amended.  The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance 
website
BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu
 
* HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA), 1 Jan 2018: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)

  –
Last Amendment: 
14 Aug 2018: 
Harmonized System Update 1812
, containing 27 ABI records and 6 harmonized tariff records. 

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

 
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130.
  

  – Last Amendment: 
30 Aug 2018:
83 FR 44228-44229
, USML Chapter XI(c).
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 30 Aug 2018) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, over 800 footnotes containing amendment histories, case annotations, practice tips, DDTC guidance, and explanations of errors in the official ITAR text. Subscribers receive updated copies of the BITAR in Word by email, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment.
The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance 
website
. BAFTR subscribers receive a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please
contact us
to receive your discount code.

 

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

EN_a319
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)
 

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

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

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, Alex Witt. 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 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