18-1227 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

18-1227 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 27 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. DHS Amends Regulations Implements Exemptions Concerning 024 CIRS System of Records 
  2. State Posts Determination Relating to Iran Sanctions  
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Posts Final Draft of Revised Form 5106, Create/Update Importer Identity Form
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. Expeditors News: “CBP Releases List of Federal Holidays for Calendar Year 2019”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Japan Trade Agreement Negotiating Objectives Released”
  1. H. Krause, M. Huizinga & K. Sauer: “German Government Lowers FDI Screening Threshold for Certain Industries”
  2. R. Engelstaedter & S. Klein: “EU Screening of Foreign Investments”
  1. FCC Presents Renewed U.S. Export Controls Awareness Course: “ITAR & EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 9 April in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (18 Dec 2018), DOJ/ATF (26 Dec 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), DOC/EAR (20 Dec 2018), DOE/AFAEC (23 Feb 2015), DOE/EINEM (20 Nov 2018), DOT/FACR/OFAC (15 Nov 2018), DOC/FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (19 Dec 2018), DOS/ITAR (4 Oct 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 


1. DHS Amends Regulations Implements Exemptions Concerning 024 CIRS System of Records

(Source: Federal Register, 27 Dec 2018.) [Excerpts.]
83 FR 66557-66559: Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records
* AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of a newly established system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the “DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
* DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 2018.
* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0064, at:
  – Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments.
  – Mail and hand delivery on commercial delivery: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, ATTN: Privacy Officer–Debra L. Danisek, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20229.
  – Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rule. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
  – Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For privacy issues please contact: Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office Philip S. Kaplan at 202-343-1717.
   DHS received thirty-two comments on the CBP CIRS NPRM and four on the CBP CIRS SORN. Of the thirty-six total comments, thirteen were erroneously filed relating to the republication of the DHS Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking system (A-File). DHS will not respond to comments regarding the publication of the A-File SORN in this Final Rule. Of the remaining substantive comments for CIRS: (1) Seventeen related to transparency; (2) two related to the collection of information not specifically relevant to an investigation; and (3) four were duplicates of two formal briefs submitted for both the SORN and the NPRM. The following is an analysis of the substantive comments and questions submitted by the public.
   Comment: DHS should not hide what it is collecting by exempting the information from Privacy Act protections.
   Response: DHS published the CIRS SORN in compliance with the notification requirements of the Privacy Act, subsection 552a(e)(4), and thus, is being transparent of its collection activities. The CIRS SORN describes the information that DHS collects and retains in association with this system of records. DHS does not seek to hide this collection or exempt it from the notification requirements of the Privacy Act; rather, it seeks exemptions to ensure that records critical to law enforcement and intelligence activities need not be shared in the event that such sharing might jeopardize the investigation or otherwise compromise DHS operations.
   Comment: DHS’s collection of records in CIRS is overly broad because, as stated in the NPRM, DHS may be collecting information that “may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation.”
   Response: In order to conduct a complete investigation, it is necessary for DHS/CBP to collect and review large amounts of data in order to identify and understand relationships between individuals, entities, threats and events, and to monitor patterns of activity over extended periods of time that may be indicative of criminal, terrorist, or other threat.
   Comment: The SORN contains materially false claims concerning the status of the rulemaking for Privacy Act exemptions that are directly contradicted by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for those exemptions.
   Response: The Secretary of Homeland Security issued a proper NPRM, pursuant to the Privacy Act, the Federal Register, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements, received comments from the public as part of the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is issuing this final rule in conformance with those requirements.
   Comment: Proposed routine uses would circumvent Privacy Act safeguards and contravene legislative intent.
   Response: DHS’s collection of records in CIRS is intended to permit DHS/CBP to review large amounts of data in order to identify and understand relationships between individuals, entities, threats and events, and to monitor patterns of activity over extended periods of time that may be indicative of criminal, terrorist, or other threat. The SORN is consistent with the legislative intent of the Privacy Act to ensure fair practices, collection, and uses of individuals’ personal information. The routine uses, as written in the CIRS SORN, and disclosures of such records, are compatible with the purpose for which they are originally collected and used by DHS/CBP.
   After consideration and review of the public comments, DHS has determined that the exemptions should remain in place, and will implement the rulemaking as proposed. …
   Philip S. Kaplan, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.

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


2. State Posts Determination Relating to Iran Sanctions
(Source: Federal Register, 27 Dec 2018.)
83 FR 66832: Determination by the Secretary of State Relating to Iran Sanctions
   The Secretary of State determined on November 3, 2018, pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (Pub. L. 112-81), as amended, that as of November 3, 2018, each of the following jurisdictions have significantly reduced the volume of their crude oil purchases from Iran: China, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey.
  Kent D. Logsdon, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources, U.S. Department of State.

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


OGS_a13. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* State; NOTICES; Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Annual Report [Publication Date: 28 December 2018.]
* U.S. Customs and Border Protection; RULES; Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation [Publication Date: 28 December 2018.]
* U.S. Trade Representative; NOTICES; Product Exclusions: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation [Publication Date: 28 December 2018.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)


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

CSMS #18-000755, 26 Dec 2018.)
The final draft of the revised CBP Form 5106, called the Create/Update Importer Identity Form, is now available on cbp.gov and can be accessed by going to the “Other 5106 Resources” list on the CBP Form 5106 site page.

Any questions about the final draft of the revised form should be emailed to 5106@cbp.dhs.gov.

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

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


NWS_a07. Expeditors News: “CBP Releases List of Federal Holidays for Calendar Year 2019”

(Source: Expeditors News, 26 Dec 2018.)
On December 17, 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released a list of Federal holidays for calendar year 2019 in Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) #18-000740.
The following days are designated as Federal holidays:
  – New Year’s Day – Tuesday, January 1;
  – Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. – Monday, January 21;
  – Washington’s Birthday – Monday, February 18;
  – Memorial Day – Monday, May 27;
  – Independence Day – Thursday, July 4;
  – Labor Day – Monday, September 2;
  – Columbus Day – Monday, October 14;
  – Veterans Day – Monday, November 11;
  – Thanksgiving Day – Thursday, November 28;
  – Christmas Day – Wednesday, December 25.
The CSMS may be found

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

NWS_a18. ST&R Trade Report: “Japan Trade Agreement Negotiating Objectives Released”

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released Dec. 21 its negotiating objectives for a U.S. trade agreement with Japan. Formal discussions with Japan can begin as early as 30 days after the issuance of the negotiating objectives, as provided under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.
The notification to Congress from USTR states that the U.S. will seek to reduce both tariff and non-tariff barriers and achieve fairer and more balanced trade with Japan. The U.S. intends to improve its trade balance and reduce its trade deficit with Japan, increase transparency in import and export licensing procedures, and discipline import and export monopolies to prevent trade distortions.
With regard to trade in industrial goods, the U.S. will seek comprehensive duty-free treatment for U.S. industrial goods, including textile and apparel products, and expand market access for remanufactured goods exports by ensuring that they are not classified as used goods that are restricted or banned. Additional provisions will be sought to obtain fair and more equitable trade in the motor vehicle sector, including provisions to address non-tariff barriers in Japan. Furthermore, commitments will be secured with respect to greater regulatory compatibility to facilitate U.S. exports in key goods sectors such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, information and communication technology equipment, motor vehicles, and chemicals.
On customs procedures, the U.S. will seek to increase regulatory transparency and ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, shipments are released immediately after determining compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Additional objectives in this area include providing for streamlined and expedited customs treatment for express delivery shipments, providing for simplified customs procedures for low-value goods and a more reciprocal de minimis shipment value, and ensuring that Japan administers customs penalties in an impartial and transparent manner.
Other specific negotiating objectives set forth in USTR’s notification include ensuring that Japan avoids manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage, providing a mechanism to ensure transparency and take appropriate action if Japan negotiates an FTA with a non-market country, strengthening existing procedures and creating new procedures to address antidumping and countervailing duty evasion, and requiring the adoption or maintenance of requirements for companies to maintain accurate books and records to facilitate the detection and tracing of corrupt payments.

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


COMM_a19. H. Krause, M. Huizinga & K. Sauer: “German Government Lowers FDI Screening Threshold for Certain Industries”
(Source: Allen & Overy LLP, 20 Dec 2018.)
* Authors: Hartmut Krause, Esq., hartmut.krause@allenovery.com, +49 69 2648 5782; Michiel Huizinga, Esq., michiel.huizinga@allenovery.com, +49 69 2648 5333; and Knut Sauer, Esq., knut.sauer@allenovery.com, +49 69 2648 5375. All of Allen & Overy LLP.
The threshold for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening has been lowered to 10% for the defence sector and critical infrastructure. From now on, critical infrastructure also includes media businesses. More review procedures and (probably) a longer duration of reviews are to be expected.
In 2004, Germany enacted a regime empowering the German government to assess and prohibit the acquisition of German businesses active in the defence and encryption sector by Non-German investors. This regime, known as sector-specific review procedure, was broadened in 2009 to cover acquisitions of any German company irrespective of industry sector, provided that such acquisition may endanger German public order or security. This cross-sector review applied to Non-EU/Non-EFTA investors acquiring 25 % or more of the voting rights in a German company. An amendment of the regime in 2017 introduced specific regulations applicable to businesses active in industries that qualify as critical infrastructure.
Lower threshold for certain industries
Today, the German government decided to lower the FDI screening threshold from 25 % to 10 % for acquisitions by Non-German investors of German businesses active in the defence and encryption sector and for acquisitions by Non-European investors of businesses active in industries that qualify as critical infrastructure.
The decision marks a further tightening of the German FDI rule after “Leifeld”, the first ever precautionary order issued by the German government prohibiting the acquisition of a German business.
Broadening of list of critical infrastructures
Apart from lowering the threshold, the new legislation also broadens the list of businesses which qualify as critical infrastructure: businesses active in the media have been added. According to the new legislation this includes broadcasting, television and print media that are relevant for the public debate and which are characterized by a specific relevance to the present and a certain wide-spread impact.
One needs to note that already in accordance with provisions such as the German Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag) notifications are required in cases where a change in the ownership structure or a change of other (factual) influence in a private broadcasting company are envisaged. Those procedures will now run in parallel and it will be interesting to see whether there will be any direct interaction taking place between the competent authorities.
The German government argued that such amendments are necessary to protect media businesses and to avoid misinformation in the German media. The future will show how the German Ministry of Economic Affairs will develop objective criteria based on which it can be measured whether a potential buyer will promote misinformation.
Conclusion and outlook
Germany remains an investor friendly country:
Even though the threshold is now even lower than initially discussed, Germany remains an investor friendly country. According to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, there are currently 80 to 100 cases per year and no formal prohibition has taken place so far (Leifeld was precautionary in nature).
Impact on the German M&A market will be limited:
Against the background of the German M&A market, the impact of the new legislation should be limited. The majority of transactions is still aiming at the acquisition of a controlling interest; for those transactions, the amendments mean no change in substance. However, transactions like the sale of a 20% stake in 50Hertz or acquisitions of minority stakes by sovereign wealth funds are now subject to FDI screenings.
Nevertheless, an increased number of reviews and prolonged duration of reviews to be expected:
It is to be expected that the amended regime will increase the number of applications that will be filed with the German Ministry of Economic Affairs. Given that the duration of reviews has been already rather on the long end in 2018, it is to be expected that with an increased number of cases, the reviews will in practice take even longer.
New businesses qualified as critical infrastructure:
Transactions involving media businesses are certainly not day-to-day transactions in the current German M&A market. Certain aspects of such transactions are covered also by the German Broadcasting Treaty. The future will show how the German Ministry of Economic Affairs will develop objective criteria based on which can measured whether a potential buyer will promote misinformation.
Harmonization on EU level:
In the near future, further developments are to be expected at EU level. The European Commission proposed a EU Framework for screening foreign direct investments. The framework will allow Member States and the Commission to cooperate and exchange information on investments from third countries that may affect security or public order. On 20 November 2018, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission reached a political agreement on the new EU Framework which now remains to be adopted by the European Parliament and by the Council before becoming effective. The envisaged harmonization at EU level will increase the complexity of FDI procedures. This complexity needs to be taken into account when structuring M&A transactions in the future.

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

. R. Engelstaedter & S. Klein: “EU Screening of Foreign Investments”

(Source: Paul Hastings LLP, 18 Dec 2018.)
* Authors: Regina Engelstaedter, Esq., reginaengelstaedter@paulhastings.com, +49 69 907485-110; and Sebastian Klein, Esq.,
, +49 69 907485-108. Both of Paul Hastings LLP.
Screening of Foreign Investments at the Raise
The European Union negotiators reached a political agreement on an EU framework for screening foreign direct investment and introduced an alert mechanism enabling the regulators to act on short deadlines and with the utmost confidentiality. Germany lowered the threshold for initiation of the screening procedure to 10%.
The New Trend
While the EU emphasises its desire to remain open for foreign investments, it highlights the need to protect certain strategic fields of business where the attainment of control or influence over European assets could become critical for the security and public order in the EU and its Member States. The goal is to limit threats to “critical infrastructure,” including energy, transport, communication, data, financial industries, and food supplies, and to “critical technologies,” such as semiconductors, robotics, and AI.
The core element of the agreement is to establish a “cooperation mechanism” for foreign direct investments through a combination of data collection and information exchange. While the ultimate power of approving deals remains with the individual Member State, the other Member States and the Commission will be allowed to provide comments/opinions and therefore introduce peer pressure.
The main features of the new European framework for screening of foreign direct investment are the following:
– Creating a cooperation mechanism where Member States and the Commission will be able to exchange information and raise specific concerns.
– Allowing the Commission to issue opinions in such cases that a particular envisaged investment concerns several Member States, or an investment that could affect a project or programme of interest to the whole EU.
– The individual Member States keep the last word whether or not a specific investment should be allowed in their territory.
Next Steps
The two co-legislators have now to confirm this agreement and give the final green light to the proposal so that it can enter into force.
In parallel, the Commission is completing a detailed analysis of the foreign direct investment flows into the EU and has set up a coordination group to help identify joint strategic concerns and solutions in the area of foreign direct investment.
The EU framework contains essential elements of a procedural framework for screening mechanisms in the Member States. This includes transparency of the screening mechanisms, no discrimination between third countries, the establishment of timeframes for issuing screening decisions, the protection of confidential information, and the possibility to seek judicial redress against screening decisions of national authorities. However, each Member State will maintain its ability to adopt new review mechanisms or to amend its existing ones. Currently 14 Member States have such mechanisms in place and it is expected there will be more to come. On December 19, 2018, Germany decided to lower the thresholds for the Ministry of Economy to review foreign investments from 25% to 10% relating to investments in security-sensitive areas, such as critical infrastructure. Taking into account the recent changes and the political climate it is recommended to apply for the issuance of a clearance certificate from the regulators to obtain transaction security.
The direction is clear-foreign direct investments are on the spot of the regulators, and political intervention is increasing. Therefore, any investment from a non-EU member into an EU business requires careful consideration and investigation, in particular from a legal perspective.

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


TE_a111FCC Presents Renewed U.S. Export Controls Awareness Course: “ITAR & EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 9 April in Bruchem, the Netherlands

Our next academy course is specifically designed for beginning compliance professionals and those in a similar role who aim to stay up-to-date with the latest U.S. export control requirements that apply to non-U.S. transactions, and industry’s best practices.
The course will cover multiple topics relevant for organizations outside the U.S. that are subject to U.S. export controls, including: the U.S. regulatory framework, key concepts and definitions, tips regarding classification and licensing, essential steps to ensure a U.S. export control compliant shipment, how to handle a (potential) non-compliance issue, recent enforcement trends, and the latest and anticipated regulatory amendments.  Participants will receive a certification upon completion of the training.
* What: Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR from a Non-U.S. Perspective 
* When: Tuesday, 9 Apr 2010, 9.30 am – 4.30 pm (CET)
* Where: Landgoed Groenhoven, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Sponsor: Full Circle Compliance (FCC)
* Instructors: Michael E. Farrell, and Drs. Alexander P. Bosch 
* Information & Registration: HERE, email 
 or call us at +31 6 15 65 02 09.
Register now and get a 10% Early Bird discount 
on the course fee!

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


* Johannes Kepler (27 Dec 1571 – 15 Nov 1630; was a German mathematician, astronomer, and astrologer. Kepler is a key figure in the 17th-century scientific revolution. He is best known for his laws of planetary motion, based on his works Astronomia Nova, Harmonices Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. These works also provided one of the foundations for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.)
  – “I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.”
* Marlene Dietrich (Marie Magdalene Dietrich; 27 Dec 1901 – 6 May 1992; was a German actress and singer who held both German and American citizenship.)
  – “To be completely woman you need a master, and in him a compass for your life. You need a man you can look up to and respect. If you dethrone him it’s no wonder that you are discontented, and discontented women are not loved for long.”
  – “Once a woman has forgiven her man, she must not reheat his sins for breakfast.”

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

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

* DHS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.  Implemented by Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection.
  – Last Amendment: 18 Dec 2018: 83 FR 64942-65067: Modernized Drawback  
DOC EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Congress, Bureau of Industry & Security.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Dec 2018: 83 FR 65292-65294: Control of Military Electronic Equipment and Other Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML); Correction [Concerning ECCN 7A005 and ECCN 7A105.]
* DOC FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30.  Implemented by Dep’t of Congress, U.S. Census Bureau.
  – 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 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 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.  
  – 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.) 
DOE ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ATOMIC ENERGY ACTIVITIES: 10 CFR Part 810; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 23 Feb 2015: 80 FR 9359, comprehensive updating of regulations, updates the activities and technologies subject to specific authorization and DOE reporting requirements. This rule also identifies destinations with respect to which most assistance would be generally authorized and destinations that would require a specific authorization by the Secretary of Energy.
DOE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL; 10 CFR Part 110; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Nov 2018, 10 CFR 110.6, Re-transfers.

DOJ ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War.  Implemented by Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
  – Last Amendment: 26 Dec 2018: 83 FR 66514-66554: Bump-Stock-Type Devices

DOS INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130. Implemented by Dep’t of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

  – 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 website. BAFTR subscribers receive a $25 discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please contact us to receive your discount code.
* DOT FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders. 

Implemented by Dep’t of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

  – Last Amendment: 15 Nov 2018: 83 FR 57308-57318: Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions Regulations
* USITC HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA), 1 Jan 2018: 19 USC 1202 Annex. Implemented by U.S. International Trade Commission. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)
  – Last Amendment: 19 Dec 2018: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1820, containing 19,061 ABI records and 3,393 harmonized tariff records.
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

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