;

18-0905 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

18-0905 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 5 September 2018

TOP
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 Announces Intention to Enter into a Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DoD/DSS Announces NISS Deployment Guidelines
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Singapore Customs Posts Updates to the Strategic Goods Control List
  1. ST&R Trade Report: “KORUS Renegotiation Outcomes Published; Further Steps Needed to Implement”
  1. A.C. Das & K.M. Scott: “Strict Notification & Disclosure Requirements for Government Contractors”
  2. G.R. Tuttle III: “GSP Retroactive Duty Refund Requests Deadline is 19 Sep 2018”
  3. M. Volkov: “Court of Appeals Cuts Back Extraterritorial FCPA Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals”
  4. P. LeCour, J. Bell & M. Leonidou: “Brexit and Export Controls: The ‘No Deal’ Scenario”
  1. David Laufman Moves from DoJ to Private Practice
  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 (4 Sep 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
. President Announces Intention to Enter into a Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada

(Source: Federal Register, 5 Sep 2018.)
 
83 FR 45191: Notice of Intention To Enter Into a Trade Agreement
 
Consistent with section 106(a)(1)(A) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-26, Title I) (the “Act”), I have notified the Congress of my intention to enter into a trade agreement with Mexico–and with Canada if it is willing, in a timely manner, to meet the high standards for free, fair, and reciprocal trade contained therein.
 
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 31, 2018.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* State; NOTICES; Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), aka Jamaat Nosrat al-Islam wal-Mouslimin, aka Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims, et al. [Publication Date: 6 September 2018.]
 
* State; NOTICES; Designations as Foreign Terrorists: Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), aka Jamaat Nosrat al-Islam wal-Mouslimin, aka Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims, et al. [Publication Date: 6 September 2018.]
 
* State; NOTICES; Meetings; Advisory Committee on International Law [Publication Date: 6 September 2018.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
Commerce/BIS)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
DoD/DSS, 5 Sep 2018.)
 
The National Industrial Security System (“NISS”) deployment timelines have been announced! Industry and Government partners may begin registration for NISS accounts on Monday, October 8, 2018. Click
here for important guidance regarding this system transition.

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

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

(Source:
Singapore Customs, 4 Sep 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
Singapore Customs would like to inform you that the new Strategic Goods (Control) Order 2018 (“SGCO 2018”) has been gazetted on 4 September 2018, and will come into effect from 1 November 2018. You may access the SGCO 2018 via our website at
www.customs.gov.sg > Businesses > Strategic Goods Control > Strategic Goods Control List.
 
The SGCO 2018 brings Singapore’s strategic goods control list up to date with the 2017 Wassenaar Arrangement’s Munitions List, and the 2017 European Union’s List of Dual-Use Items (“EUDL”). The EUDL contains dual-use items controlled by the four multilateral export control regimes (the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement).
 
The SGCO 2018 will incorporate revisions such as new controls, removal of controls, as well as editorial changes for consistency and clarity of controls. A document on the amendments can be found via our website at
www.customs.gov.sg > Businesses > Strategic Goods Control > Resources.
 
Amendment to the Strategic Goods (Control) Regulations (“SGCR”)
 
An amendment will be made to the Strategic Goods (Control) Regulations (“SGCR”) to reflect its reference to the new SGCO 2018. There are no changes to the scope of transshipment and transit controls.
 
The Strategic Goods (Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 will come into effect from 1 November 2018.
 
Amendment to the Strategic Goods (Control) Brokering Order 2007
 
An amendment will be made to the Strategic Goods (Control) Brokering Order 2007 to reflect its reference to the new SGCO 2018. There are no changes to the scope of brokering controls.
 
The Strategic Goods (Control) (Brokering) (Amendment) Order 2018 will come into effect from 1 November 2018. …

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

NWSNEWS

 
The U.S. and Korea have published the agreed outcomes of their negotiations earlier this year to amend and modify the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (“KORUS”). The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative states that these outcomes include amendments and modifications to KORUS as well as additional agreements and understandings to improve its implementation.
 
According to USTR, Korea will now open for public comment the provisional Korean translations of the outcomes. Once this is complete and the translations are certified by both governments, the documents may be finalized for signature, which will be followed by further procedures in both countries as needed to bring the outcomes into force. In the U.S., any necessary modifications to the tariff schedule will undergo consultation and layover procedures that include a 60-day consultation period with Congress.
 
USTR indicates that changes to KORUS include the following.
 
  – The phase-out of the 25 percent U.S. tariff on Korean trucks will be extended from 2021 to 2041.
  – The number of U.S. automobile exports that can meet U.S. safety standards (in lieu of Korean standards) and enter the Korean market without further modification will be doubled to 50,000 cars per manufacturer per year.
  – U.S. gasoline engine vehicle exports may show compliance with Korea’s emission standards using the same tests conducted to show compliance with U.S. regulations.
  – Korea will recognize U.S. standards for auto parts necessary to service U.S. vehicles and reduce labeling burdens for parts.
  – Korea has agreed on principles for conducting verification of origin of exports under KORUS.
  – Within 2018 Korea will amend its Premium Pricing Policy for Global Innovative Drugs to make it consistent with commitments under KORUS to ensure non-discriminatory and fair treatment for U.S. pharmaceutical exports.
  – A memorandum of understanding is being finalized on robust provisions to prohibit competitive currency devaluation and exchange rate manipulation.
  – Korean exports of steel products to the U.S. will be subject to a product-specific quota equivalent to 70 percent of the average annual import volume of such products during the period 2015 to 2017.
 
View Document(s):

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a08. A.C. Das & K.M. Scott: “Strict Notification & Disclosure Requirements for Government Contractors” 

(Source: Wilson Elser, 30 Aug 2018.)
 
* Authors: Anjali C. Das, Esq.,
anjali.das@wilsonelser.com; and Kevin M. Scott, Esq.,
kevin.scott@wilsonelser.com. Both of Wilson Elser, Chicago.
 
[Authors’ Note: Stefanie Ferrari (Law Clerk-Chicago) assisted in researching and drafting this Alert.]
 
Businesses that seek to obtain and preserve contracts with the United States government, or to deal in certain enumerated defense articles and services, are subject to strict privacy regulations imposed by the U.S. government. For those under contract (or subcontract) with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements (DFARS) place stringent minimum security requirements and reporting obligations that must be met, otherwise a business could face financial penalties or termination of its contract. Businesses that export and import defense articles or services and related technical data must comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), which comprise approval, registration and records maintenance requirements. If a violation of ITAR is voluntarily reported, the penalties imposed by the U.S. Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) can be reduced. Businesses subject to DFARS and ITAR should have a compliance program in place that includes an appropriate response to any security incident.

DFARS

Overview

Subpart 204.73 of the DFARS is a set of cybersecurity regulations that the DoD imposes on external contractors and suppliers. The DFARS is intended to maintain cybersecurity standards according to requirements laid out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), specifically, 
NIST SP 800-171. These standards were constructed to protect the confidentiality of 
Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls and is either (1) identified in the contract and provided to the contractor by or on behalf of the DoD in support of the performance of the contract, or (2) collected, developed, received, transmitted, used or stored by or on behalf of the contractor in support of the performance of the contract. [DFARS §204.7301.] DoD contractors had until December 31, 2017, to become DFARS compliant; with the deadline now past, all DoD contractors must meet the minimum requirements and show proof to the DoD for all contracts moving forward. 
 
Requirements: To meet the minimum requirements of DFARS, DoD contractors must:
  – Provide adequate security to safeguard covered defense information that resides in or transits through internal unclassified information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure. While there is no prescribed format or specified level of detail for system security plans, organizations should use the NIST MEP Cybersecurity Self-Assessment Handbook for Assessing NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements in Response to DFARS Cybersecurity Requirements, 
NIST HB 162 as a guide to assist in implementing the required information in SP 800-171.
  – Rapidly report cyber-incidents and cooperate with the DoD to respond to these security incidents, including providing access to affected media and submitting malicious software. 
 
Penalties for Noncompliance: DoD contractors that are audited by the DoD and are found noncompliant with DFARS will likely receive a stop-work order, meaning work for the DoD will be suspended until suitable security measures are implemented to protect CUI. In addition, the DoD may impose financial penalties, including damages for breach of contract and false claims. In the worst-case scenario, a noncompliant DoD contractor could have its contracts with the DoD terminated and possibly face suspension or debarment from working with the DoD again. 
 
Notification Obligations

DFARS requires rapid reporting within 72 hours of discovery of all intrusions and any actual or potential security threats. Reports can be made online by completing the fields in the Incident Collection Form (“ICF”). Access to this form requires a DoD-approved medium assurance public key infrastructure (“PKI”) certificate. If a company does not have a PKI certificate, it may contact the DoD Cyber Crime Center (DC3) for additional information. Contractors and subcontractors have an obligation to report; a subcontractor must provide the incident report number to the prime contractor. 
 
If a contractor does not have all information required by section 204.7203 within 72 hours of discovery of a cyber-incident, the contractor/subcontractor should report whatever information is available within 72 hours. When more information becomes available, the contractor/subcontractor should submit a follow-up report with the added information. See 
DFARS FAQs for additional information. 
Section 204.7203 of DFARS provides:

  (b) Contractors and subcontractors are required to rapidly [within 72] hours of discovery of any cyber-incident] report cyber-incidents directly to the DoD. Subcontractors provide the incident report number automatically assigned by DoD to the prime contractor.

Lower-tier subcontractors likewise report the incident report number automatically assigned by DoD to their higher-tier subcontractor, until the prime contractor is reached.

     (1) If a cyber-incident occurs, contractors and subcontractors

submit to DoD:
      (i) A cyber-incident report;

      (ii) Malicious software, if detected and isolated; and

      (iii) Media (or access to covered contractor information systems and 
           equipment) upon request.
 
ITAR

Overview

The ITAR, 22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130, control the export and import of defense articles (including technical data) as defined on the United States Munitions List (USML, part 121 of the ITAR) and defense services. The United States government requires that all manufacturers, exporters and brokers of defense articles, defense services or related technical data be ITAR compliant.
 
Getting and Staying in Compliance: The ITAR requires a company engaged in the manufacturing, exporting, temporary importing or brokering of defense articles (including technical data) to (1) register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), (2) maintain records as required by 22 CFR §122.5, and (3) obtain licenses or other approvals prior to making exports or temporary imports, or engaging in brokering agreements. 
 
Establish and Maintain a Compliance Program: The DDTC strongly advises parties engaged in defense trade to establish and maintain an ITAR/export compliance program. Possessing defense articles or technical data increases the risk of an inadvertent violation. Many companies that don’t engage in manufacturing, exporting or brokering still maintain compliance programs to reduce the risk of such violations. 
A good program is generally 
clearly documented in writing, tailored to the business, regularly reviewed/updated and fully supported by management.
 
 
The ITAR “strongly encourages” the prompt disclosure of any violation, or suspected violation, to the DDTC. The proper disclosure of a violation, or potential violation, can be a significant mitigating factor in DDTC’s analysis of such violations. Failure to report a violation is considered by the DDTC when assessing penalties. 
 
Examples of common violations include:
  – Export without authorizations
  – Unauthorized accesses to technical data
  – Failure to comply with license provisos
  – Failure to maintain required records
  – Failure to register or maintain registrations
  – Misuse of ITAR exemptions. 
 
How to Voluntarily Disclose: 
Any person wanting to disclose information that constitutes a voluntary disclosure should follow these steps:
  – Initially notify DDTC immediately after a violation is discovered.
  – Conduct a thorough review of all defense trade transactions where a violation is suspected.
  – If the initial notification does not contain all the required information, a full disclosure must be submitted within 60 calendar days of the notification, or the DDTC will not consider the notification a voluntary disclosure. If you are unable to provide full disclosure within the 60-day deadline, an Empowered Official or a senior officer may request an extension in writing. The request must specify what information could not be provided immediately and the reasons why. 
 
What to Include in a Voluntary Disclosure: 
Notification of a violation must be in writing and should include the following information:
  – A precise description of the nature and extent of the violation
  – The exact circumstances surrounding the violation (a thorough explanation of why, when, where and how the violation occurred)
  – The complete identities and addresses of all persons known or suspected to be involved in the activities giving rise to the violation (including mailing, shipping and email addresses; telephone and fax/facsimile numbers; and any other known identifying information)
  – U.S. Department of State license numbers, exemption citation or description of any other authorization, if applicable
  – U.S. Munitions List category and subcategory, product description, quantity, and characteristics or technological capability of the hardware, technical data or defense service involved
  – A description of corrective actions already undertaken that clearly identifies the new compliance initiatives implemented to address the causes of the violations set forth in the voluntary disclosure and any internal disciplinary action taken; and how these corrective actions are designed to deter those particular violations from occurring again
  – The name and address of the person making the disclosure and a point of contact, if different, should further information be needed. 
 
How to Submit a Voluntary Disclosure
: ITAR §127.12(g) requires hard copies of voluntary disclosures be sent to the DDTC. Disclosures may be submitted via mail or overnight delivery to the following addresses:
 
DDTC Postal Mail
DDTC Express Mail & Courier Delivery
PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor
Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Bureau of Political Military Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20522-0112
U.S. Department of State
PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor
2401 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20226
 
Conclusion   

Government contractors need to be aware of the requirements and restrictions of the DFARS and ITAR. Those not in compliance should take prompt action to review and revise their privacy and security policies to meet the minimum requirements outlined above. Moreover, contractors should have a plan in place in the event of a security incident, as compliance with the notification and disclosure provisions of these regulations can go a long way toward eliminating or reducing any penalties.

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

Deadline is 19 Sep 2018″

 
* Author: George R. Tuttle III, Esq., Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, geo@tuttlelaw.com, +1 415-986-8780 
 
CBP released CSMS #18-000505 on 31 August 2018 setting forth information on filing retroactive duty refund requests for GSP.
 
H.R. 1625 “Consolidate Appropriations Act, 2018” reauthorized the GSP for goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption from 1 January 2018 through 31 December 2020. The new law, which was effective 22 April 2018, also provided for retroactive refund of all duties, without interest, to the importer of GSP-eligible goods entered during 1 January 2018 through 21 April 2018 (known as the “lapse period”).
 
Importers wishing to claim GSP preferences on importations without the SPI “A” must input a Post Summary Correction (PSC) or protest (CBP will accept a protest, although not a true 19 USC § 1514) to the corresponding Port team or Center of Excellence and Expertise team requesting the GSP refund no later than 19 September 2018. CBP will deny all GSP duty refund requests received after 19 September 2018, unless the request is a re-submission of a previously submitted and improperly denied request.
 
Additional Information can be found at CBP’s GSP page.

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

COMM_a310. M. Volkov: “Court of Appeals Cuts Back Extraterritorial FCPA Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog, 4 Sep 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
The Justice Department’s attempt to assert broad jurisdiction over foreign nationals was rebuked in a recent US Court of Appeals decision in
United States v. Hoskins. (
Here).  As a result, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the FCPA conspiracy count against defendant Hoskins, a former Alstom executive.
 
The government will still be able to prosecute Hoskins for substantive FCPA violations based on the theory that he acted as an agent of a US company, Alstom’s subsidiary, based in New Jersey.
 
The practical effect of the Court’s decision will be minimal since the FCPA already includes broad categories of foreign nationals’ subject to prosecution.  Hoskins unique factual circumstances occur relatively rarely.  However, the Court’s decision stands as a rebuke to the Justice Department’s interpretation of the statute.
 
Hoskins, who worked for an Alstom subsidiary was charged with FCPA conspiracy despite the fact that he had no contact with the United States, worked for a foreign subsidiary, and did not carry out any acts in the United States.  Hoskins was charged with other defendants with a conspiracy to bribe foreign officials in Indonesia.
 
The Court was faced with an interesting issue – whether a defendant could be charged with conspiracy to violate a statute where he did not fall within the categories of persons covered by the statute.
 
The FCPA creates three categories of persons who can be prosecuted under the statute: (1) Issuers of securities and their officers, directors or employee; (2) U.S. companies and US persons using facilities of interstate commerce to carry out a bribery scheme; and (3) foreign companies or persons who carry out bribery schemes while acting in the United States.
 
Alstom is based in France. Hoskins worked at an Alstom subsidiary in France. The government alleges that Hoskins participated in a bribery scheme by Alstom’s US subsidiary to secure a $118 million power contract in Indonesia. Hoskins allegedly was involved in the selection of, and authorization of, illegal payments to a third-party, who in turn paid bribes to an Indonesian official.
 
Several parts of the bribery scheme occurred in the United States: one of the consultants had a bank account in Maryland; bribery payments were made from funds in the United States; several executives met and discussed the bribery scheme while in the United States; and email and phone communications occurred in the United States relating to the bribery scheme. Hoskins communicated with US-based executives and employees about the scheme, but was never physically present.
 
The legal question presented by the appeal was fairly technical and required the Court to determine if Hoskins could be charged with conspiracy to violate a substantive statute that did not cover his activities. The Court upheld the lower court decision based on the following factors:
 
First, the Court ruled that the conspiracy charge was restricted to those specific enumerated categories of persons subject to the FCPA. The Court found the language of the statute instructive on this question since it specifically listed the persons subject to the statute and excluded any category applicable to Hoskins.
 
Second, the Court found that the legislative history surrounding the FCPA supported the exclusion of foreign nationals falling into Hoskins’ category of persons covered by the FCPA. The Court carefully analyzed the legislative history citing Congress’ decision to exclude foreign nationals that do not fall within the enumerated categories.
 
Finally, the Court cited the presumption against extraterritorial application of the FCPA in the absence of an affirmative statement from Congress in the statute.

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

(Source:
Deloitte, 1 Sep 2018.)
 
* Authors: Pablo LeCour, Esq.,
plecour@deloitte.co.uk; Julia Bell, Esq.,
julbell@deloitte.co.uk; and Marios Leonidou, Esq.,
mleonidou@deloitte.co.uk. All of Deloitte.
 
The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) of the Government of the United Kingdom has released a guidance document detailing the effect of exporting controlled goods in a ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario. 
Whilst the UK Government states that negotiations with the EU are progressing well and that a ‘no-deal scenario’ is highly unlikely, the document also notes that it is the responsibility of Government to prepare for ‘all eventualities’ in the lead up to March 2019. The areas predominantly affected relate to the export of dual-use items, goods usable for torture or capital punishment, and firearms.
 
Military Items
 
In the event of a no deal, there would be no changes to controls on the export of military items from the UK (other than minor legislative fixes), as EU regulations do not apply in this area.
 
Dual-use Items
 
The export of dual-use items from the UK to EU Member States would require an export licence, in the same way as for non-EU destinations. In other words, exports to EU countries would be treated under the same framework as exports to non-EU destinations are treated now.
 
In a ‘no deal’ scenario, exporters of dual-use items would have the opportunity to register to use an Open General Export Licence (OGEL) designed specifically for exports to EU countries. This licence would remove a requirement for exporters to apply for individual licences and would be instantly valid following a registration process. ECJU would publish the OGEL in advance of Brexit, along with licence registration guidance. However, no date has been set on when such guidance would be released. Exporters requiring individual licences will be able to apply for these licences in advance of the exit date.
 
Additionally, any dual-use licenses currently being used by UK companies to export goods from other EU Member States would no longer be valid, and a new licence would be required from the applicable Member State. For example, if you are using a UK export licence to export goods from a warehouse in Germany, in the event of a no deal, you would need to replace this with a German export licence. This may require additional local resources to take responsibility and accountability for export license management.
 
Goods Usable For Torture Or Capital Punishment
 
Similarly to the export of dual-use items, exports to EU Member States of goods usable for torture or capital punishment would be treated as exports to non-EU countries. Consequently, exporting or providing brokering, training, or advertising services relating to items controlled under Annex II (Council Regulation 2016/2134) to EU Member States would be prohibited; exporting items controlled under Annexes III & IIIA (Council Regulation 2016/2134) to EU Member States would require a license.
 
Firearms
 
The owner of a European Firearms Pass is currently permitted to take personal firearms from one EU Member State to another. After a ‘no deal’ Brexit, this pass would no longer be available for UK persons taking personal firearms to the EU. The exemption that currently permits the temporary export of firearms (as personal effects) to non-EU destinations would be extended to cover the EU.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a112. David Laufman Moves from DoJ to Private Practice

(Source: Editor)
 

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

(Source: Editor)
 
* Louis XIV (Louis Dieudonné; 5 Sep 1638 – 1 Sep 1715; known as Louis the Great (
Louis le Grand
) or the Sun King (
Roi Soleil
), was a monarch of the House of Bourbon who reigned as King of France from 1643 until his death in 1715. Starting on 14 May 1643 when Louis was 4 years old, his reign of 72 years and 110 days is the longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country in European history.)
  – “It is legal because I wish it.”
  – “Every time I appoint someone to a vacant position, I make a hundred unhappy and one ungrateful.”

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

EN_a314
. 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 Amendment: 4 Sep 2018: 83 FR 44821-44828: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of Entries on the Entity List and Removal of Certain Entities From the Entity List

  
*
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: 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
here.
  – 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.  
 
*
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_a0315
Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

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