18-1206 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

18-1206 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 6 December 2018

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

  1. Commerce/ITA: Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee to Meet via Conference Call on 20 Dec 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. Expeditors News: “WCO Dedicates 2019 to Transforming Frontiers into SMART Borders”
  2. Wall Street Journal: “Canadian Authorities Arrest CFO of Huawei Technologies at U.S. Request”
  3. WorldECR News Alert, 6 Dec
  1. D. Garrod, L.J. Garritsen & A. Khela: “Brexit is Not a Done Deal: UK Can Unilaterally Revoke Article 50”
  2. D.R. Mahanty & E. Eikenberry: “How the ‘Arms Sales Oversight Act’ Could Prevent American Arms from Contributing to the Next Overseas Crisis”
  3. M. Volkov: ‘The “60-60’ Issue and Indoctrinating Middle Management into the Compliance Mission”
  1. ECS Presents “Seminar Level I – Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance” in Orlando, FL on 7-8 Feb 2019
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (29 Nov 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (2 Nov 2018), FACR/OFAC (15 Nov 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (1 Nov 2018), ITAR (4 Oct 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 



Federal Register, 5 Dec 2018.) [Excerpts.]
83 FR 62837-62838: Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee: Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee
* AGENCY: International Trade Administration (“ITA”), U.S. Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
* SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
* DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 20, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EST on Monday, December 17, 2018.
* ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: Mr. Devin Horne, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. (Fax: 202-482-5665; email: devin.horne@trade.gov). Members of the public are encouraged to submit registration requests and written comments via email to ensure timely receipt.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Devin Horne, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-0775; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: devin.horne@trade.gov).
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The CINTAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), in response to an identified need for consensus advice from U.S. industry to the U.S. Government regarding the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of civil nuclear goods and services in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including advice on how U.S. civil nuclear goods and services export policies, programs, and activities affect the U.S. civil nuclear industry’s competitiveness and ability to participate in the international market.
  Topics to be considered: The agenda for the Thursday, December 20, 2018 CINTAC meeting is a discussion on activities related to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative.
  Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Devin Horne at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EST on Monday, December 17, 2018 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. …
  Dated: November 29, 2018.
Man Cho, Deputy Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries. 

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


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

* Commerce; Census Bureau; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Automated Export System [Publication Date: 7 December 2018.]
* Defense; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Use of Products and Services of Kaspersky Lab [Publication Date: 7 December 2018.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)


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

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


NWS_a15. Expeditors News: “WCO Dedicates 2019 to Transforming Frontiers into SMART Borders”

(Source: Expeditors News, 5 Dec 2018.)
On November 8, 2018, the World Customs Organization (WCO) announced they would devote 2019 to swift and smooth cross-border movement with the slogan, “SMART borders for seamless Trade, Travel, and Transport.”
According to the WCO, the SMART borders concept follows the guiding principles of Customs compliance, enforcement and facilitation efforts:
  – Secure – enhancing supply-chain security and efficiency;
  – Measurable – developing a robust, comprehensive and fully scientific methodology for performance measurement;
  – Automated – exploiting cutting-edge technologies to improve processes, services and overall performance;
  – Risk Management-based – an intelligence-driven and data-enabled risk management framework;
  – Technology-driven – the use of advanced information and communication technologies.
The WCO will enhance many of the tools, instruments, and initiatives it has developed, to assist Customs administrations in making the transition to SMART borders.
The WCO will launch their annual theme on January 26, 2019.
The WCO press release may be found

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

NWS_a26. Wall Street Journal: “Canadian Authorities Arrest CFO of Huawei Technologies at U.S. Request”

(Source: Wall Street Journal, 5 Dec 2018.) [Excerpts.]
Canadian authorities in Vancouver have arrested Huawei Technologies Co.’s
chief financial officer at the request of the U.S. for alleged violations of Iran sanctions, the latest move by Washington against the Chinese cellular-technology giant.
A spokesman for Canada’s justice department said Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver on Dec. 1 and is sought for extradition by the U.S. A bail hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Friday, according to the spokesman. Ms. Meng, the daughter of Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, also serves as the company’s deputy chairwoman.
The arrest comes at a critical juncture in U.S.-Chinese relations. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last weekend agreed to a temporary truce in a trade spat to negotiate a settlement. The U.S. has raised other concerns with China, ranging from spying to intellectual-property theft to Beijing’s military posture in the South China Sea. China has said its actions are appropriate.
The U.S. has undertaken a campaign against Huawei, which is viewed as a national-security threat because of its alleged ties to the Chinese government. In the past year, Washington has taken a series of steps to restrict Huawei’s business on American soil and, more recently,
launched an extraordinary international outreach campaign to persuade allied countries to enact similar curbs.
China strongly protests the arrest and has urged both U.S. and Canadian officials to free Ms. Meng, according to a statement released by the Chinese Embassy in Canada.
The U.S. is seeking Ms. Meng’s extradition so as to have her appear in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, according to people familiar with the matter. …

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

NWS_a37. WorldECR News Alert, 6 Dec

(Source: WorldECR, 6 Dec 2018.)
  (1) HMRC releases guidance to exporters in case of a ‘no deal’ Brexit
  (2) OFAC takes steps to shut down use of digital currency by ‘malicious cyber actors’
  (3) EU plans to prolong Russian sectoral sanctions following rising tensions in Azov Sea
  (4) US sanctions vice-president of Nicaragua
  (5) OFAC settles with Cobham Holdings for tech-error ‘apparent’ sanctions breach
[Editor’s Note: To subscribe to WorldECR, the journal of export controls and sanctions, please visit http://worldecr.com/.]

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


Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 5 Dec 2018.)
* Authors: Davina Garrod, Esq.,
davina.garrod@akingump.com, +44 20-7661-5480; Lennart J. Garritsen, Esq.,
lennart.garritsen@akingump.com, +44 20-7012-9619; and Anu Khela, Paralegal,
akhela@akingump.com, +44 20-7012-9617. All of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
Key Points
  – On December 4, 2018, CJEU AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona opined that the U.K. could unilaterally revoke its Article 50 withdrawal notification, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.
  – The CJEU is now expected to confirm this view in a formal judgment before the U.K. House of Commons is scheduled to vote on the Withdrawal Agreement next Tuesday (December 11). This would raise the prospect of the U.K. Parliament voting to revoke its intention to leave the European Union and “remain,” rather than be faced with a stark choice between Prime Minister May’s deal and there being no deal by March 29.
  – Senior ministers say that it would be the government’s decision to revoke Article 50, and not Parliament’s. However, if a clear majority of MPs were to support such a parliamentary motion, then the government would presumably have to reconsider. Another Referendum would probably need to occur first, which, in turn, would necessitate the EU27 agreeing to extend the two-year period beyond March 29 for at least a couple of months. While Prime Minister May is expected to lose the vote next Tuesday, many currently think that she should prevail on a second vote around January 21.
On March 29, 2017, the U.K. government formally notified the European Council of its intention to leave the EU, starting the clock on a two-year negotiation period on the terms of the U.K.’s withdrawal (the “Article 50 Notification”).
Convinced that Brexit was not a done deal, in late 2017, a cross-party group of seven Scottish politicians [FN/1] (the “Pursuers”) commenced an action in the Scottish Court of Session to prove that the U.K. could unilaterally revoke its Article 50 withdrawal notice.
Whereas the Outer House of the Court of Session initially declined to consider this question on the basis that the U.K. government did not have any intention to revoke the Article 50 Notification and so the question should be considered purely hypothetical and academic in nature, on appeal, the Inner House of the Court of Session disagreed with the Outer House and ultimately referred the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU):
  “Where, in accordance with Article 50 of the TEU, a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying Member State; and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the Member State remaining within the EU.” (the “Questions”).
The case (Wightman and Others; C-621/18) was heard by the CJEU under the expedited procedure on November 27, 2018.
Constitutional Significance
In anticipation of leaving the EU, Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that the U.K. Parliament will be faced with a binary choice-to approve or not to approve-the terms of the withdrawal agreement that was provisionally agreed between the U.K. government and the European Union. This would give rise to a stark choice between leaving with a deal that is far from optimal or crashing out of the European Union on World Trade Organization terms. The Pursuers contended that there was another option should the U.K. Parliament consider the deal and no deal scenarios to be unwarranted: revocation of the Article 50 Notification and remaining in the European Union.
Whether this third option is, in fact, on the table depends on whether the CJEU will follow the Advocate General’s (AG) Opinion (which happens in more than 90 percent of cases). Whereas the U.K. government contends that the Questions are hypothetical and should therefore not be admissible, and the EU institutions believe that any revocation of the Article 50 Notification would necessitate the unanimous consent of all 27 EU Member States, the Pursuers argued that not allowing the U.K. to unilaterally revoke its Article 50 Notification would fail to respect both the sovereignty of the U.K. and democracy.
The Opinion of the Advocate General
On December 4, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona opined that, crucially, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) does allow for unilateral revocation of the Article 50 Notification, provided that such revocation (1) is in line with the relevant national constitutional requirements (i.e., the U.K. Parliament must authorize the revocation), (2) is formally notified to the European Council, (3) is effected before the expiry of the two-year period that begins when the intention to withdraw is notified (presumably subject to any extensions of this period) and (4) is done in accordance with the principles of good faith and sincere cooperation.
The AG’s conclusion is predominantly based on his consideration that withdrawal from an international treaty is, by definition, a unilateral act of a state party and is a manifestation of its sovereignty; so long as the U.K. has not formally left the European Union (which would happen on March 29, 2019, as it now stands), the U.K. should be free to change its “intention” to withdraw.
Significance of the Case
The AG opinion is merely advisory in nature, and the CJEU has yet to issue its judgment. It is expected that the CJEU will publish its decision before the U.K. will vote on the withdrawal agreement on December 11, 2018. However, whether or not the CJEU will have its decision ready in time, past experience shows that the CJEU usually follows the conclusions of the AG and, hence, the U.K. Members of Parliament may approach the December 11 vote on the assumption that there are three, rather than two, options on the table, increasing the likelihood that Brexit might not happen after all.
  [FN/1] Andrew Wightman and Others [[2018] CSOH 61]. The group is headed by Andy Wightman MSP, and the other pursuers are Ross Greer MSP, Alyn Smith MEP, David Martin MEP, Catherine Stihler MEP and Joanna Cherry QC MP. English MPs Tom Brake and Chris Leslie were joined in the case in May 2018.

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

Just Security, 5 Dec 2018.)
* Authors: Daniel R. Mahanty, Director of the U.S. program at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), Twitter:
@danmahanty; and Eric Eikenberry, Director of Policy & Advocacy at the Yemen Peace Project,
The debate over U.S. complicity in Yemen’s humanitarian catastrophe is coming to a head in the Senate, with a series of votes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy
war powers resolution. But beyond this immediate measure, other members of Congress are planning to increase their long-term leverage over weapons sales to problematic security partners. Foremost among them, Representatives Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) recently
introduced House Resolution 7080, the ”
Arms Sale Oversight Act,” to little fanfare. The bill’s unassuming title and procedural focus should not escape the attention of conventional arms control advocates. If passed, H.R. 7080 would expand Congress’s constricted ability to vote down damaging arms sales and mark a first step toward preventing the United States from exacerbating the human cost of conflict.
The legislation would reform Section 36 of the
Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to ensure that any supportive representative can move to discharge a joint resolution of disapproval against a proposed arms sale ten days following its introduction if the presiding committee fails to report it. Win the vote in the House, pass the same joint resolution in the Senate (or vice versa), and Congress has successfully exercised its primary legal means of immediately barring a harmful transfer (whether or not the White House agrees).
The measure could dramatically reshape congressional authorities over arms exports. Currently, due to a separate AECA provision, only senators are guaranteed a vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. Absent H.R. 7080’s proposed reform, corresponding House resolutions will remain “highly privileged”-which means that those seeking to stop a transfer at present can only secure a vote only if leadership acquiesces.
This inter-chamber imbalance not only robs representatives of a vote in determining U.S. foreign policy, but also diminishes the efforts of conventional arms control advocates in the Senate. Because joint legislation from the House is unlikely to see the floor, Senate efforts can be reduced to signaling opposition to, rather than truly shutting down, an administration’s proposed sale.
By correcting this imbalance, H.R. 7080 will open another avenue to ending U.S. enabling of other governments’ gross violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws. Nowhere is this avenue more needed than for Yemen’s internationalized civil war. There, parties to the conflict routinely conduct indiscriminate attacks on civilians and have created a humanitarian crisis that has pushed millions to the brink of starvation. Yet, it is Saudi Arabia and the UAE, using U.S.-manufactured weapons and logistical support, that have caused
the majority of the conflict’s recorded civilian casualties. Causing further concern, a
new documentary aired by
Deutsche Welle, presents credible evidence that the coalition states have diverted U.S.-manufactured armored vehicles to unaccountable non-state militias.
Admittedly, the Senate has rarely made a serious attempt to block an arms sale by resolution of disapproval, but support for exercising greater Congressional oversight over arms sales seems to be on the rise. And even when a resolution of disapproval fails to pass, mere consideration of the legislation can send clear signals to the executive branch and recipient countries alike, and can stimulate valuable policy debate. While
S.J. Res. 39, a 2016 effort to block tank sales to Saudi Arabia, mustered 27 votes,
S.J. Res. 42, a June 2017 measure to freeze a sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, garnered 47. The administration has not moved forward with a further sale of as many as
120,000 precision munitions to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE due to Senate opposition; the weapons’
traceable serial numbers, as damning as “made in the USA” stickers, could embroil the United States in further strikes on buses, hospitals, and homes. While the threat of unicameral opposition has worked for now, the reforms advanced by H.R. 7080 would further increase the chances for debate on arms sales in the Congress, and create a more efficient path for the House and Senate to indefinitely arrest a sale. Had the procedures outlined in H.R. 7080 been in place in June 2017, 
H.J. Res. 102 (the House companion to S.J. Res. 42), could have forced a vote on a motion to discharge instead of dying quietly in committee, creating a debate that, as it did on the Senate side, swayed moderate offices against the sale and focused a news cycle on U.S. complicity in Saudi-led coalition attacks on civilians.
While the most recent and egregious example, Yemen is not the only case where enhanced Congressional oversight is necessary to add reasonable constraints to the arms sales process. By some credible estimates, the United States sells arms, including bombs and missiles, to
at least 62 countries that are an active party to a conflict. Some countries to whom the United States sells arms, such as Bahrain and Egypt, have demonstrated a consistent pattern of human rights violations; others present a very clear risk of misuse or diversion, or even the potential for mass atrocities. And some countries with lower levels of capacity simply require a greater degree of due diligence to ensure equipment can be used appropriately. If H.R. 7080 makes it more likely that Congress could exercise more meaningful oversight in even a handful of these cases, the risk of U.S. complicity in human rights abuses or the next humanitarian disaster, wherever it is, could be meaningfully diminished – and at minimal opportunity cost.
H.R. 7080 does not have to become law this Congress to have an impact – advocates should view it as an organizing tool around which to rally, and that could ease the way to reforms small and large which can check the executive’s nearly unfettered prerogative to sell weapons to any regime, regardless of their crimes. To begin, H.R. 7080 does not have to pass for next year’s House to respect its provisions as an intra-chamber rule: regardless of eventual passage, Democratic leadership should open this procedural path to the floor for joint resolutions of disapproval as a matter of course.
Furthermore, if H.R. 7080 is reintroduced in the 116
thCongress, it should be resurfaced alongside a host of measures to strengthen Congress’s hand in overall arms export policy. These can include requiring detailed and unclassified answers from the departments of State and Defense concerning the likelihood that a sale of certain items will exacerbate armed conflict or spur an arms race (theoretically a judgment the executive already makes under AECA) and outlining robust processes for monitoring the way weapons’ are used among recipients with a history of rights violations or violations of the laws of armed conflict, and those for which the indicators suggest a high risk of future violations. Congress should also consider lowering notification thresholds, so that members can vet arms sales valued at less than $50 million. The time is also long past for Congress to unequivocally clarify that the
Leahy Law applies to Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), thereby prohibiting State and Defense from permitting the transfer or maintenance of defense articles to security forces that have committed unconscionable human rights violations with impunity.
There is no simple trick to ending the devastation yielded by the war and intervention in Yemen, which has directly
killed at least 57,000, contributed to the further deaths of
tens of thousands of children per year from preventable causes, and threatened
14 million with famine. Yet without a congressional freeze on weapons to the coalition states, there will never be enough political space for peace negotiations to take root. So long as short-term profit motive driving executive branch arms sales policy supersedes a reasonable modicum of self-restraint, the Congress, and H.R. 7080 present the best opportunity to limit the risk that American weapons will be involved in – or aggravate – both Yemen’s catastrophe and the next humanitarian crisis.

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

Volkov Law Group Blog, 5 Dec 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
Maybe I am getting slow in my old age – or just maybe I am losing a step or two. We all face that inevitable question – and perhaps, for me, it is best illustrated when I come up with yet another in my series of profound grasps of the obvious.
Here is one of my favorites – I call it the 60-60 problem. If you survey your middle managers, and you ask them a simple question – “Are you comfortable in handling and responding to an employee who raises a specific concern with you?” – the answer you will likely receive from 60 percent of your managers, is a resounding “No.”
Now, to my second part of the 60 percent problem – if you ask your employees how and to whom they prefer to report a specific concern, they will typically answer their supervisor.
Do you understand the disconnect here? Employees want to tell their bosses directly about specific problems, and supervisors, in large part, i.e. around 6 out of 10, are not comfortable in receiving and responding to employee concerns.
When I raise this issue with compliance professionals, I usually get the “nod,” meaning they understand what I am saying and agree with my observation. But I am starting to get the feeling, however, that I may be sparking a “GM Nod” response, which was cited in the GM internal investigation of the ignition malfunction scandal – which translated into a message of we understand but we are not planning to do anything about it.
All of this prelude is meant to ask pose two simple questions:
  – Is the 60-60 problem real?
  – What are compliance professionals doing about it?
If the problem is real. Then companies should be doing something about it. The solution, as always, depends on the typical process – education, substantive support, and accountability. Let’s take a moment on each:
Education: If middle managers do not feel comfortable responding to employee concerns, let’s show them how to do it. Let’s train them on how to listen, what they should say and how to elevate the issue to the appropriate people in the company. We have to underscore the importance of this process to our overall commitment to an ethical culture that depends on encouraging and embedding a Speak Up culture.
Substantive Support: Beyond teaching middle managers how to encourage and respond to employee concerns, we need to develop materials, scripts, talking points and other documents needed to guide middle managers so that they feel comfortable. This I a great opportunity to ensure a consistent and strong message of the importance of reporting employee concerns and reiterating our commitment to a policy of non-retaliation.
Accountability: If there is no accountability for the importance of this process, it will be a failed initiative. By accountability, I mean that middle managers have to be responsible for encouraging and responding to employee concerns, and they have to be assessed by their own supervisors on this process as part of their overall commitment to ethics and compliance. An initiative without accountability is a recipe for failure – unfortunately, the human species needs incentives to maximize performance. We respond best when we have incentives and ideals to define our mission.
While I have heard some say that my hope and expectation in this area is unrealistic, I always encourage companies and professionals to aim high in their professions because success comes to those with a vision and commitment. This is one of those important tasks – middle managers are critical lynchpins in a company’s culture and a valuable resource.

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


TE_a111. ECS Presents “Seminar Level I – Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance” in Orlando, FL on 7-8 Feb 2019

* What: Seminar Level I – Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance; Orlando, FL
* When: February 7-8, 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer, Mal Zerden
* Register here or by calling 866-238-4018 or email spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Gunnar Myrdal (Karl Gunnar Myrdal; 6 Dec 1898 – 17 May 1987; was a Swedish economist and sociologist. In 1974, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Friedrich Hayek for “their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”)
  – “In society, liberty for one may mean the suppression of liberty for others.”

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

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

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  The latest amendments to applicable regulations are listed below.
: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm. 
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 29 Nov 2018: 83 FR 61318-61320: Technical Corrections to the Vessel Repair Unit Regulations  


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

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

  – Last Amendment: 2 Nov 2018: 
83 FR 55099: Wassenaar Arrangement 2017 Plenary Agreements Implementation [Correction to 24 Oct EAR Amendment Concerning Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, Category 3.]

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

  – Last Amendment: 15 Nov 2018: 83 FR 57308-57318: Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions Regulations

: 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
  – The latest edition (30 Apr 2018) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR contains all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word every time the FTR is amended. The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance websiteBITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu.  
, 1 Jan 2018: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)

  – Last Amendment: 1 Nov 2018: 
Harmonized System Update 1819, containing 1,200 ABI records and 245 harmonized tariff records.

  – HTS codes for AES are available 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
  – Last Amendment:
4 Oct 2018: 83 FR 50003-50007: Regulatory Reform Revisions to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 4 Oct 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
. BAFTR subscribers receive a $25 discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please
contact us
to receive your discount code.

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

Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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


* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, Alex Witt. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 6,000 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