;

19-0308 Friday “Daily Bugle”

19-0308 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 8 March 2019

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

Contact us 
for advertising inquiries and rates
.

  1. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Titanium Sponge
  2. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Regarding Items Transferred from USML Categories IV and XV to CCL Categories 0 and 9
  3. State Seeks Comments Regarding Review of USML Categories IV and XV
  4. State Welcomes Feedback Concerning Disclosures of AECA Violations
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Updates 5106 CATAIR and Appendix C
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Treasury/OFAC Issues Venezuela-Related General Licenses, Updates FAQs 661 and 662
  1. Al Jazeera: “U.S. and European Arms Used to Attack Yemeni Civilians: Report”
  2. Expeditors News: “UK Updates Guidance on EORI Numbers”
  3. Reuters: “Long before Trump’s Trade War with China, Huawei’s Activities Were Secretly Tracked”
  4. TechCrunch: “Huawei is Suing the U.S. Government Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Equipment Ban”
  5. The Washington Post: “Huawei Opens Brussels Security Lab in Bid to Reassure EU”
  6. WorldECR: “Japan Concerned Over Proposed U.S. Emerging Technologies Controls”
  1. A. Doussin “Sanctions Enforcements: UK and EU Bare Their Teeth”
  2. The FAQ of the Day: “Marketing Licenses for Mission Systems”
  1. ECS Presents “Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” on 26-27 Mar in Scottsdale, AZ
  2. List of Approaching Events: 158 Events Posted This Week, Including 16 New Events
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (14 Jan 2019), DOC/EAR (20 Dec 2018), DOC/FTR (24 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), DOE/AFAEC (23 Feb 2015), DOE/EINEM (20 Nov 2018), DOJ/ATF (26 Dec 2018), DOS/ITAR (4 Oct 2018), DOT/FACR/OFAC (15 Nov 2018), HTSUS (7 Mar 2019)
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. 
Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Titanium Sponge

(Source: 
Federal Register, 8 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
84 FR 8503-8504: Notice of Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Titanium Sponge
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice of request for public comments.
* SUMMARY: On March 4, 2019, in response to a petition, the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”) initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security from imports of titanium sponge. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.
 Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce’s (the “Department”) Bureau of Industry and Security by April 22, 2019. Rebuttal comments will be due by May 22, 2019. This notice identifies issues on which the Department is especially interested in obtaining the public’s views.
* DATES: The due date for filing comments is April 22, 2019. The due date for rebuttal comments is May 22, 2019. Rebuttal comments may only address issues raised in comments filed on or before April 22, 2019.
* ADDRESSES: Submissions: All written comments on the notice must be submitted in English and must be addressed to Section 232 Titanium Sponge Investigation and filed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
http://www.regulations.gov/. To submit comments via 
http://www.regulations.gov, enter docket number BIS-2018-0027 on the home page and click “search.” The site will provide a search results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice and click on the link entitled “Comment Now!” (For further information on using 
http://www.regulations.gov, please consult the resources provided on the website by clicking on “How to Use This Site.”)
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-3110, 
Titanium232@bis.doc.gov. For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, please see 
www.bis.doc.gov/232.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 
Background
 
On March 4, 2019, in response to a petition, the Secretary initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security from imports of titanium sponge. If the Secretary finds that titanium sponge is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall so advise the President in his report on the findings of the investigation.
 
Written Comments
 
 This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the Department’s Office of Technology Evaluation no later than April 22, 2019. Rebuttal comments submitted in response to issues raised in comments received on or before April 22, 2019 may be filed no later than May 22, 2019.
 The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in Sec. 705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security, including the following:
 (i) Quantity of or other circumstances related to the importation of titanium sponge;
 (ii) Domestic production and productive capacity needed for titanium sponge to meet projected national defense requirements;
 (iii) Existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce titanium sponge;
 (iv) Growth requirements of the titanium sponge industry to meet 
national defense requirements and/or requirements for supplies and services necessary to assure such growth including investment, exploration, and development;
 (v) The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the titanium sponge industry;
 (vi) The displacement of any domestic titanium sponge production causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects;
 (vii) Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy; and
 (viii) Any other relevant factors, including the use and importance of titanium sponge in critical infrastructure sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 21 (Feb. 12, 2013) (for a listing of those sectors see 
here).
 
Requirements for Written Comments
 
 The 
http://www.regulations.gov website allows users to provide comments by filling in a “Type Comment” field, or by attaching a document using an “Upload File” field. The Department prefers that comments be provided in an attached document. The Department prefers submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If the submission is in an application format other than those two, please indicate the name of the application in the “Type Comment” field. Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as part of the submission itself rather than in separate files. Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except information determined to be confidential as outlined in Sec.  705.6 of the NSIBR. Comments may be viewed on 
http://www.regulations.gov by entering docket number BIS-2018-0027 in the search field on the home page.
 Material submitted by members of the public that is properly marked business confidential information and accepted as such by the Department will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by Sec.  705.6 of the NSIBR. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential submission which can be placed in the public file on 
http://www.regulations.gov. Communications from agencies of the United States Government will not be made available for public inspection. For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The non-confidential version must be clearly marked “PUBLIC”. The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal comments. All filers should name their files using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. If a public hearing is held in support of this investigation, a separate Federal Register notice will be published providing the date and information about the hearing.
 The Bureau of Industry and Security does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view the Bureau’s web page, which can be found at 
here (see “Electronic FOIA” heading). If requesters cannot access the website, they may call 202-482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1
et seq.).
 
 Dated: March 4, 2019.
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce.

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

EXIM_a2

2. 
Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Regarding Items Transferred from USML Categories IV and XV to CCL Categories 0 and 9

(Source: 
Federal Register, 8 Mar 2019.)  
 
84 FR 8485-8486: Request for Public Comments Regarding Review of Commerce Control List for Items Transferred from United States Munitions List Categories IV and XV
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
* SUMMARY: As part of its work with the National Space Council, the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce requests public comment to inform its review of the controls implemented in recent revisions to Categories IV and XV of the United States Munitions List (USML) and the related transfer of items to the Department of Commerce’s Commerce Control List (CCL). These items include launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, and mines; and spacecraft and related articles. BIS’s review seeks to ensure that the CCL describes these items clearly, captures those items in normal commercial use, accounts for technological developments, and implements the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States properly.
* DATES: Comments must be received by BIS no later than April 22, 2019.
* ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through the Federal rulemaking portal (
http://www.regulations.gov). The 
http://www.regulations.gov ID number for this rule is BIS-2018-0029. All comments (including any personally identifying information) will be made available for public inspection and copying.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, and mines (Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 0A604, 0B604, 0D604, 0E604, 9A604, 9B604, 9D604, and 9E604), contact Jeffrey Leitz, Senior Staff Engineer, Munitions Control Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security at (202) 482-7417 or 
Jeffrey.Leitz@bis.doc.gov. For questions regarding spacecraft and related items (ECCNs 9A515, 9B515, 9D515, and 9E515), contact Dennis Krepp, Director, Sensors and Aviation Division, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls at (202) 482-1309 or 
Dennis.Krepp@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 
Background
 
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Department of Commerce, maintains the CCL under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). To ensure controls align with the national security and foreign policy objectives of the U.S. Government, the USML and the CCL must be regularly reviewed and updated to account for technological developments, issues related to the practical application of these controls, and changes in the military and commercial applications of items covered by the USML or by the corresponding “600 series” and 9×515 ECCNs on the CCL.
 Consistent with the objectives in Space Policy Directive-2 (available 
here [and included in the Daily Bugle of 25 May 2018, ed.]), this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), seeks public comments to inform a review of those items on the CCL implemented in connection with the recent removal of articles from Categories IV (79 FR 34, January 2, 2014) and XV (82 FR 2889, January 10, 2017) of the USML and the placement of those items on the CCL. BIS seeks to ensure the CCL includes clear descriptions, captures items in normal commercial use, takes into account technological developments, and implements the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States properly.
 In particular, BIS seeks comment on ways to thoughtfully streamline export control regulations for both the U.S. commercial space industry as well as our international partners to lower administrative burden, decrease regulatory compliance costs as well as increase exports thereby bolstering the U.S. space commercial sector and industrial base.
 
Request for Comments
 
 (1) For technologies controlled under ECCN 9A515–examples include habitats, planetary rovers, and planetary systems such as communications and power–what factors or specific technologies should be considered for movement to a different ECCN or paragraph under ECCN 9A515 with less stringent licensing requirements?
 (2) The USG is considering further refinement or updated controls on the various technologies listed below. Are there additional specific space-related technologies not described in the list which warrant further review by State or Commerce given their current or anticipated near term commercial applications?
   – Satellite thrusters (bi-propellant, electric, and liquid apogee engines);
   – gyroscopes;
   – inertial navigation systems;
   – large aperture earth observation cameras;
   – spacecraft antenna systems and adaptive Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) antennas;
   – suborbital systems with propulsion systems currently controlled under USML;
   – kapton tape;
   – star trackers; and
   – astrocompasses.
 (3) NASA continues to pursue development of the future Lunar Gateway, which may be described in USML Category XV(a). If moved to the CCL, what would be the appropriate controls to apply to items associated with the Lunar Gateway, e.g., ECCNs 9A515 or 9A004?
 (4) Are there technologies controlled in the USML for either Category IV and XV, which are not currently described or not described with sufficient clarity which the commenter believes should be controlled under the EAR? While this notice discusses specific items based on initial communications with industry, the list is not exhaustive and commenters are encouraged to provide additional examples within both USML categories.
 (5) Are there specific defense articles which have entered into normal commercial use since the most recent revisions? If so, please provide sufficient detail in describing and identifying the article to support your claim. Commenters may include documentation to support this claim, e.g., product information demonstrating what is currently in the market (web pages describing products and product brochures), or scientific and industry articles, in particular those also describing trends in commercial products, that resulted from new technologies or manufacturing methods.
 (6) Are there defense articles for which commercial use is proposed, intended, or anticipated in the next five years? If so, provide sufficient detail in describing and identifying the article to support your claim. Commenters may include documentation to support this claim, e.g., product development or marketing information describing what products will soon to be in the market (web pages describing products under development, press releases related to products under development) or scientific and industry articles, in particular those describing new products that may soon enter the market place as a result of new technologies or manufacturing methods.
 (7) Are there other technical issues for these items which BIS should address, e.g., the addition of technical notes or defined terms used in the control parameters to make the controls easier to understand and apply consistently?
 (8) What are the cost savings to private entities by shifting control of additional specific commercial items from the USML to the CCL? To the extent possible, please quantify the current cost of compliance with USML control of an item and any cost savings if a particular change was implemented. Cost savings could include time saved in terms of regulatory uncertainty over whether certain items are regulated as on the USML or the CCL. This reduced uncertainty, under the “bright line” approach of the USML to CCL review process, would allow both BIS and industry to avoid spending hours and resources on case by case determinations for certain items. As much as possible, please quantify time saved, reduction in compliance costs, and reduction in paperwork.
   Please note general comments on other aspects of the CCL are 
outside of the scope of this inquiry.
 
   Dated: February 22, 2019.

Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

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

EXIM_a3

3. 
State Seeks Comments Regarding Review of USML Categories IV and XV

(Source: 
Federal Register, 8 Mar 2019.) 
 
84 FR 8486-8487: Request for Comments Regarding Review of United States Munitions List Categories IV and XV
 
* AGENCY: Department of State.
* ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
* SUMMARY: As part of its work with the National Space Council, the Department of State requests comments from the public to inform its review of the controls implemented in recent revisions to Categories IV and XV of the United States Munitions List (USML). The Department periodically reviews USML categories to ensure that they are clear, do not inadvertently control items in normal commercial use, account for technological developments, and properly implement the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States.
* DATES: The Department will accept comments up to April 22, 2019.
* ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
 – Email: 
DDTCPublicComments@state.gov. Please include “USML Categories IV and XV” in the subject line.
 – Internet: At 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for sending comments using docket number, DOS-2018-0048.
 – Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov will be visible to other members of the public; the Department will publish all comments on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls website (
www.pmddtc.state.gov). Therefore, commenters are cautioned not to include proprietary or other sensitive information in their comments.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Monjay, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2817; email 
publiccomments@state.gov. ATTN: Request for Comments Regarding Review of USML Categories IV and XV.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One advantage of revising the USML into a more positive list is its controls can be tailored to satisfy the national security and foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government by maintaining control over those articles that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage, or otherwise warrant control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), without inadvertently controlling items in normal commercial use. This approach, however, requires that the list be regularly revised and updated to account for technological developments, practical application issues identified by exporters and reexporters, and changes in the military and commercial applications of items affected by the list.
 
Request for Comments
 
 Consistent with the objectives in Space Policy Directive-2 (see 
here[and included in the Daily Bugle of 25 May 2018, ed.]) the Department is requesting public comments on USML Categories IV (Launch Vehicles) and XV (Spacecraft). In particular, the Department is requesting comment on ways to thoughtfully streamline export control regulations for these categories for the benefit of U.S. industry as well as our international partners. Streamlining controls could lower administrative burden and regulatory compliance costs and present the opportunity for increased exports, thus bolstering the U.S. space commercial sector and industrial base.
 For reference, Category IV was most recently fully revised on July 1, 2014 (see 79 FR 34, Jan. 2, 2014). Category XV was most recently revised on January 15, 2017 (see 82 FR 2889, Jan. 10, 2017). In order for your comments to be most useful, the Department encourages the public to provide comments responsive to the prompts described below. Please note general comments on other aspects of the ITAR, to include other categories of the USML, are outside of the scope of this inquiry. 
 In particular, the Department requests comments on the following.
 (1) Are there emerging or new technologies that warrant control in one of the referenced categories, but which are not currently described or not described with sufficient clarity?
 (2) Are there specific defense articles described in the referenced categories that have entered into normal commercial use since the most recent revision of that category? If so, please include documentation to support this claim.
 (3) Are there defense articles described in the referenced categories for which commercial use is proposed, intended, or anticipated in the next five years? If so, please provide any documentation.
 (4) Are there other technical issues for these categories which the Department should address?
 (5) The export control system uses the size of space-based optical telescopes as the technical parameter differentiating between items controlled by the Department of Commerce in Commerce Control List (CCL) Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 9A515.a.1and by the Department of State in USML Category XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2). This is based on physics, and specifically the fact that larger optical telescopes generally can generate higher-resolution images than smaller ones. NASA tends to use larger optical telescopes for astrophysics missions because the celestial bodies these missions observe are many light years away, and smaller optical capabilities cannot physically meet the relevant science requirements. At the same time, because NASA missions are designed and calibrated to observe distant celestial objects, they are physically incapable of observing the Earth, which is so bright relative to distant objects that NASA’s telescopes would suffer permanent physical damage if pointed at Earth. Essentially, NASA astrophysics missions form a class of spacecraft which meet the technical definition for national security-sensitive spacecraft regulated by the Department of State, but are incapable of observing the Earth.
 In the past, this issue has been addressed by creating separate regulatory categories for specific missions. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope, NASA’s next flagship astrophysics mission, was the subject of specific regulatory activity (see, 82 FR 2875 and 2889, Jan. 10, 2017) to ensure that it is controlled by the Department of Commerce under ECCN 9A004 even though it otherwise meets the control text of USML Category XV. However, since it would be impractical to issue an updated regulation every time NASA initiates a new astrophysics mission, the Department is seeking comments from the public on a way to provide technical differentiation within U.S. export control regulations between the space-based optical telescopes for astrophysics missions and those used for Earth observation.
 (6) The control in USML Category XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2) is based, in part, on the size of the clear aperture of the telescope’s optics. However, not all space-based telescopes use a disc-shaped viewer and thus it is not always possible to definitively determine the size of the “clear aperture” of a specific space-based electro-optical/infrared (E.O./IR) remote sensing system for the purpose of the regulations. Are there suggested revisions that would clarify the scope of Categories XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2), such as a definition of “clear aperture”?
 (7) Many spacecraft are designed to provide supplies to the International Space Station and other future space stations. This activity is commonly referred to as “servicing” the space stations, which is an activity that can lead to USML control under Category XV(a)(12). Are there suggested revisions that would clarify the scope of this paragraph, such as a definition of “servicing”?
 (8) NASA continues to pursue development of the future Lunar Gateway, which may be described in Category XV(a). Are there any public comments regarding the potential control status of the future Lunar Gateway?
 (9) What are the cost savings to private entities from shifting control of a suggested specific item from USML to the CCL? To the extent possible, please quantify the current cost of compliance with USML control of an item and any cost savings if a particular change was implemented. Cost savings could include time saved in terms of regulatory uncertainty over whether a certain item is regulated as on the USML or the CCL. This reduced uncertainty, under the “bright line” approach described in the Administration’s Export Reform Initiative, would allow both State and industry to avoid spending hours and resources on case by case determinations for certain items. As much as possible, please quantify time saved, reduction in compliance costs, and reduction in paperwork for a particular change.
 The Department will review all comments from the public. If a rulemaking is warranted based on the comments received, the Department will respond to comments received in a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.
 
 Dated: March 1, 2019.

Sarah Heidema, Director, Defense Trade Control Policy Office, U.S. Department of State.

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

EXIM_a4

4. 
State Welcomes Feedback Concerning Disclosures of AECA Violations 

(Source: 
Federal Register, 8 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
84 FR 8558: 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Disclosure of Violations of the Arms Export Control Act
 
* ACTION: Notice of request for public comment.
* SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
* DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to May 7, 2019.
* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
 – Web: Persons with access to the internet may comment on this notice by going to 
www.Regulations.gov. You can search for the document by entering “Docket Number: DOS-2018-0060” in the Search field. Then click the “Comment Now” button and complete the comment form.
 – Regular Mail: Send written comments to: Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State; 2401 E St. NW, Suite H1205, Washington, DC 20522.
 You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Andrea Battista, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, who may be reached at 
battistaAL@state.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
 
 – Title of Information Collection: Disclosure of Violations of the Arms Export Control Act.
 – OMB Control Number: 1405-0179.
 – Type of Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
 – Originating Office: T/PM/DDTC.
 – Form Number: DS-7787.
 – Respondents: Individuals and companies engaged in the business of exporting or temporarily importing defense hardware or defense technology data who have committed an ITAR violation. … 
 – Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. … 
 
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
 
Abstract of Proposed Collection
 
 The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), located in the Political-Military Affairs Bureau of the Department of State, encourages voluntary disclosures of violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2751 
et seq.), its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR 120-130), and any regulation, order, license, or other authorization issued thereunder. The information disclosed is analyzed by DDTC to ultimately determine whether to take administrative action concerning any violation that may have occurred. Voluntary disclosure may be considered a mitigating factor in determining the administrative penalties, if any, that may be imposed. Failure to report a violation may result in circumstances detrimental to the U.S. national security and foreign policy interests and will be an adverse factor in determining the appropriate disposition of such violations. Also, the activity in question might merit referral to the Department of Justice for consideration of whether criminal prosecution is warranted. In such cases, DDTC will notify the Department of Justice of the voluntary nature of the disclosure, but the Department of Justice is not required to give that fact any weight.
 ITAR Sec. 127.12 enunciates the information which should accompany a voluntary disclosure. Historically, respondents to this information collection submitted their disclosures to DDTC in writing via hard copy documentation. However, as part of an IT modernization project designed to streamline the collection and use of information by DDTC, a discrete form has been developed for the submission of voluntary disclosures. This will allow both DDTC and respondents submitting a disclosure to more easily track submissions. … 
 
Anthony Dearth, Chief of Staff, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a15
. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 

* DHS/CBP; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
  – Cargo Container and Road Vehicle Certification for Transport under Customs Seal; and 
  – User Fees [Pub. Dates: 11 Mar 2019.]

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

OGS_a26
Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: 
Commerce/BIS)

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

OGS_a03
7.
DHS/CBP Updates 5106 CATAIR and Appendix C 

(Source: 
CSMS# 19-000111, 8 Mar 2019.) 

An updated Importer/Consignee Create/Update CATAIR and 5106 Appendix C are now posted on 
CBP.GOV at the following location under the ‘Chapters: Drafts for Future Capabilities’ tab: 
here

  – Related CSMS No. 19-000094

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

OGS_a4
8. 
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
(Source: 
State/DDTC)

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

OGS_a5
9.
Treasury/OFAC Issues Venezuela-Related General Licenses, Updates FAQs 661 and 662

(Source: 
Treasury/OFAC, 8 Mar 2019.)
 
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing 
General License 3D, “Authorizing Transactions Related to, Provisions of Financing for, and Other Dealings in Certain Bonds,” and 
General License 9C, “Authorizing Transactions Related to Dealings in Certain Securities.”  OFAC is extending the expiration date of provisions relating to the wind down of certain financial contracts or other agreements involving, or linked to, the bonds listed on the Annex to General License 3D or to certain Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. securities. Additionally, OFAC is issuing correspondingly updated FAQs
661 and
662.

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

NWSNEWS

(Source: 
Al Jazeera, 6 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
Of 27 Saudi-led coalition attacks that killed 203 civilians in Yemen, 22 likely involved US-made weapons.
 
United States and European weapons are being used by the Saudi- and UAE-led coalition to kill and wound hundreds of civilians in Yemen, a new report by the Yemen-based Mwatana for Human Rights (MHR) has revealed.
 
The organization documented 27 unlawful coalition attacks from April 2015 to April 2018 that killed 203 civilians and injured at least 749.
 
Of the 27 attacks, 22 likely involved weapons produced in the US, two attacks likely involved weapons produced in the United Kingdom, and three attacks likely involved weapons with parts produced in both the U.S. and UK, the report said. … 
 
Despite ongoing abuses by the coalition, the U.S. continues to sell Saudi Arabia and the UAE weapons for use in Yemen, in violation of domestic and international law, MHR noted.
 
The UK, too, continues arms sales in violation of its obligations under the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the EU Common Position on Arms Export Controls. …

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

(Source: 
Expeditors News, 7 Mar 2019.) 
 
On March 4, 2019, the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) HM Revenue & Customs published updated guidance on obtaining an Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) number to continue trading in the event of the UK leaving the European Union (EU) without an agreed Withdrawal Agreement on March 29, 2019.
The guidance covers:
 
  – Who will need an EORI;
  – What will be needed for applying for an EORI;
  – A link to the application process;
  – Links to additional information for traders.
 
The UK guidance may be found 
here. The application process for an EORI may be found 
here.

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

(Source: 
Reuters, 6 Mar 2019.)  
 
The surprise arrest of Huawei’s chief financial officer in December quickly turned the executive, Meng Wanzhou, into a central figure in a trade war between two economic superpowers. 
 
U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters he would consider intervening in her case – a potential action he alluded to again two weeks ago – if it would help close a trade deal with China. 
Meng’s lawyer on Wednesday told a Canadian court that he has concerns the allegations against her have a political character, noting Trump’s comments on the case. 
 
But U.S. probes of Huawei Technologies Co Ltd for allegedly evading U.S. sanctions on Iran were not rooted in Trump’s trade aspirations. Long before Trump initiated a bitter trade war with China, Huawei activities were under scrutiny by U.S. authorities, according to interviews with ten people familiar with the Huawei probes and documents related to the investigations seen by Reuters.
 
The U.S. focus on Huawei intensified after years of investigation into smaller Chinese rival ZTE Corp, and relied in part on information collected from devices of company employees traveling through airports.
 
Two of the sources said a critical point took place in August 2017, when deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – best known for his oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the U.S. election – handed a lead role to Brooklyn prosecutors to pursue possible bank fraud charges against Huawei.
 
Fifteen months later, that strategy would help land Meng in a Canadian jail.
 
The U.S. investigations of China’s top telecom companies were spurred by reports by Reuters over six years ago, detailing possible Iran sanctions violations by both ZTE and Huawei, as well as close ties between Huawei and Skycom Tech Co Ltd – a suspected front company doing business in Iran.
 
A spokesman for Huawei, the world’s largest telecommunications equipment maker, has denied the charges in the sanctions case, and did not provide further comment to Reuters. Meng has said she is innocent of the charges. ZTE, which pleaded guilty in 2017 for illegally shipping U.S. goods to Iran, did not respond to requests for comment.
 
U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole Navas Oxman said the government pursues cases “free of any political interference and follows the evidence and rule of law in pursuing criminal charges.”
 
AIRPORT EVIDENCE GRAB
 
On December 1, 2018, Meng was stopped at Vancouver International Airport as she walked up the jetway after her flight, according to a lawsuit she filed on Friday accusing the Canadian government of violating her rights. Border officers examined her passport and escorted her to an area for secondary screenings.
 
While there, she was instructed to surrender her two mobile phones, an iPad and a personal computer, along with their passwords, the suit alleges, and the officers viewed the devices’ contents.
 
Reuters has not been able to determine what information was found on Meng’s devices, but it is not the first time she and other Chinese telecom executives have turned over such property to border patrol agents.
 
In the years leading up to the Huawei indictment, U.S. officials had been capturing information that would influence the investigation when telecom executives passed through U.S. airports, according to a number of sources familiar with the Huawei and ZTE investigations and the Meng indictment.
 
For example, Meng arrived in the United States via John F. Kennedy International Airport in early 2014. The indictment says investigators found “suggested talking points” on one of her electronic devices, stating among other things that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation.”
 
Meng had been pulled into a secondary screening at the airport that time as well, and her electronic devices were taken, according to one person familiar with the stop. After a couple of hours, the devices were returned and she was freed to go, the person said.
 
Another border search, this time on September 12, 2014, of executives from rival ZTE also supported U.S. investigators long-held suspicions of how Huawei might have been doing illicit business in countries subject to U.S. sanctions, one of the sources told Reuters.
 
ZTE’s CFO at the time was stopped at Boston’s Logan Airport after flying in from London with an assistant, the person said.
 
The assistant was carrying a Lenovo laptop containing a confidential ZTE document, dated August 25, 2011 and signed by four top executives, about the need to establish front companies to supply U.S. procured items needed for projects in embargoed countries.
 
The airport stop provided key evidence against ZTE in its legal battle with the United States, according to U.S. officials. But it also identified a company as “F7” and how it used a front company to serve as its agent for contracts in sanctioned countries. F7 was Huawei, according to the individuals familiar with the ZTE and Huawei investigations.
 
The document was posted on the U.S. Commerce Department website in March 2016 when ZTE was placed on a list of companies that were restricted from buying parts and components from U.S. suppliers. Shortly after the public posting, the New York Times reported that the description of F7 offered by ZTE matched Huawei.
 
A month later, the Commerce Department sent a subpoena to Huawei in the United States demanding information on the company’s exporting American technology to Iran, according to a court document and one of the people familiar with the Huawei probe.
 
FROM ZTE TO HUAWEI
 
With the case against ZTE wrapping up, more than a dozen people from Departments of Treasury, Commerce, Homeland Security and Justice, gathered in Washington on February 14, 2017 and talked about how they were moving forward against Huawei, according to a person familiar with matter.
 
Brooklyn prosecutors discussed the relationship between Huawei and HSBC, a bank that was required to cooperate with U.S. prosecutors in any investigation until the end of 2017 for violating U.S. anti-money laundering and sanctions laws, the person added.
 
In late 2016, HSBC began to conduct an internal bank probe of Huawei. In the weeks and months following the meeting, HSBC helped authorities obtain evidence of links between Skycom and Huawei, documents reviewed by Reuters show. The probe found Meng met in 2013 with a HSBC banker. She later gave him a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, which the U.S. indictment says misrepresented Huawei’s control of Skycom.
 
HSBC told Reuters that it provided information in response to demands from the Justice Department.
 
The U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., meanwhile, pursued a more traditional export control investigation against Huawei, which included the accusations of attempted illegal shipments of computers to Iran disclosed in the Reuters 2012 story.
 
A grand jury subpoena was issued to the U.S subsidiary of the company in April 2017, the first clear sign to Huawei that the probe had turned criminal.
 
Armed with that knowledge, the company moved U.S.-based Chinese employees who knew about its Iranian dealings out of the country and otherwise concealed and destroyed evidence, the prosecutors allege. Meng and other Huawei executives also began to avoid travel to the United States, prosecutors say.
 
In the late summer of 2017, according to two of the sources close to the Huawei investigation, Rosenstein chose Brooklyn as the venue to file charges and the Washington U.S. Attorney’s office dropped out of the case. Brooklyn was already working with a money laundering unit at the Justice Department. The national security division also merged with the Brooklyn prosecution team.
 
Legal experts said since most evidence of any illegal U.S. goods in Iran presumably existed outside the jurisdiction of U.S. authorities, the bank fraud route presented a potentially quicker path to indictment. They added that bank fraud charges are more likely to lead to arrest by other countries for extradition to the United States than export controls or sanctions violations, and have a longer statute of limitations.
 
Meng and the company were charged with bank and wire fraud. The PowerPoint presentation’s “numerous misrepresentations” were central to the charges brought against Meng herself, the indictment shows.
 
Twelve months after Brooklyn got the case, prosecutors secretly obtained a warrant for Meng’s arrest.
 
Less than four months later they learned she was stopping in Vancouver en route to Mexico on December 1, and asked the Canadians to detain her at the airport. 

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

(Source: 
TechCrunch, 7 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
Huawei has decided to go on the legal offensive against the United States government after defending itself against alleged espionage and bank frauds linked to American sanctions on Iran. During a press conference late Wednesday, Huawei announced that it has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, arguing that a ban on the use of its products by federal agencies and contractors violated due process and is unconstitutional.
 
The company is the world’s largest maker of telecommunications equipment and a growing threat to Apple in the global smartphone race. At the center of the suit, which was filed with a federal court in Huawei’s U.S. home base of Texas, is the company’s claim that Section 889 in the 
National Defense Authorization Act, passed in August 2018, is unconstitutional.
 
Section 889 contains restrictions that prevent federal agencies from procuring Huawei equipment or services, working with contractors that use Huawei equipment or services or awarding grants and loans that would be used to procure Huawei products. … 

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

NWS_a514. 
The Washington Post: “Huawei Opens Brussels Security Lab in Bid to Reassure EU” 

(Source: 
The Washington Post, 5 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
Chinese tech company Huawei on Tuesday opened a cybersecurity lab in Brussels, the heart of the European Union, as it tries to win over government leaders and fight back U.S. allegations that its equipment poses a national security risk.
 
Company executives inaugurated the Huawei Cyber Security Transparency Centre, which will allow the wireless companies that are its customers to review the source code running its network gear.
 
The launch comes amid a standoff between the U.S. and China over Huawei Technologies, the world’s biggest maker of telecom infrastructure for new high-speed 5G networks.
 

The U.S. has been lobbying allied countries and companies to shun Huawei because of fears its equipment could facilitate digital espionage by China’s communist leaders. …  

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

NWS_a615. 
WorldECR: “Japan Concerned Over Proposed U.S. Emerging Technologies Controls” 

(Source: 
WorldECR, 7 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
There are fears that proposed US controls will have a negative effect on Japanese exports.
 
Japan’s Minister for Industry has expressed concern about the prospect of the United States introducing new export controls on emerging technologies – with China in mind, according to Japanese media outlet NHK World-Japan, which reports:
 
The US Commerce Department is expected to decide later this year on imposing export controls on 14 categories of advanced technology developed in the US. They include AI and biotechnology. However, Japan has been asking the US to keep any new restrictions to a minimum, fearing they could have a negative effect on Japanese firms. Currently, some Japanese companies export products to China that use technology developed in the US, such as cars equipped with AI driver aids. … 
 

These are not the first concerns over the proposed new controls coming from out of Japan. … 

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

COMCOMMENTARY

(Source: 
Hogan Lovells, 7 May 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
* Author: Aline Doussin, Esq., 
aline.doussin@hoganlovells.com. Of Hogan Lovells. 
 
What Has Happened?
 
The UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has handed its first-ever fine for a breach of financial sanctions after a little-known bank handled just £200 of assets frozen in connection with a sanctioned Egyptian individual.
 
What Does This Mean?
 
OFSI has hit Raphaels Bank with a £5,000 fine for dealing with funds belonging to a person designated under the Egypt (Asset-Freezing) Regulation.
 
The fine may be small, but it acts as a warning to financial institutions.
 
The sanctions body said it had reduced the penalty from £10,000 after the bank reported the breach and co-operated with its investigation.
 
OFSI said that it had issued the fine after deciding that, on the balance of probabilities, that Raphaels Bank had breached a prohibition imposed by or under financial sanctions legislation and “knew, of had reasonable cause to suspect,” that it had breached the prohibition.
 
Partner Aline Doussin commented:
 
European regulators are evidently taking a stricter approach to EU sanctions enforcements. This first-ever OFSI fine comes as a reminder that EU and UK sanctions laws are not just a tick-box compliance exercise, but must be complied with on a day-to-day basis. It is interesting to note that this fine comes a few weeks after the Dutch Prime Minister called on the EU to “pack more of a punch” when it comes to sanctions policy and pan-EU enforcements.
 
Meanwhile Across The Channel
 
This fine comes few weeks after the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called on the EU to “pack more of a punch” when it comes to sanctions.
 
Giving the annual Churchill Lecture at the 
Europa Institutat the University of Zurich last month, 
Rutte said that the EU needs to show a unified front and act in co-ordination when it comes to sanctions. “Sometimes the EU forms a relatively unified and effective front – think of the sanctions against Russia, Iran and Syria. But more often the EU’s action lacks teeth, as the agreement of all 28 member states is needed and sectional interests often come into play,” he said.
 
He recognized that the requirement of unanimity reflects the fact that foreign policy is part of the core of national sovereignty, but added that when it comes to sanctions, the EU should consider enabling qualified majority voting for specific, defined cases.
According to Rutte, the EU often reacts following an incident or a crisis, such as the Skripal affair and the use of chemical weapons in Syria, which led to quicker decision on an EU sanctions regime to counter the use of chemical weapons.
 
“At the same time we must be realistic. Too often the EU members are played off against each other. We really have to ask ourselves why US sanctions have so much more impact than EU sanctions, and what we can learn from that,” Rutte said.
 
According to Rutte, companies should be in no doubt that any breach of sanctions will trigger enforcement action throughout the EU.

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

COM_a217. 
The FAQ of the Day: “Marketing Licenses for Mission Systems”

(Source: 
State/DDTC
, 27 Apr 2018.)
 
Q: If I submit a marketing license for a civil aircraft, which includes a demo of a Category XII(c) Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) “mission system,” should the license reflect XII(f) technical data only, or should it also reflect VIII(a)(11) (to account for the aircraft itself), as well?
 

A: If marketing is to be strictly limited to the FLIR (vice the aircraft) and does not cover how the FLIR shall operate in the context of the aircraft, then classifying the effort as XII(f) alone is appropriate.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TEC_a1
18. 
ECS Presents “Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” on 26-27 Mar in Scottsdale, AZ
(Source: S. Palmer, 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com.)
 
* What: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities; Scottsdale, AZ
* When: 26-27 March 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer, Lisa Bencivenga
* Register 
here or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail 

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

TE_a319. 
List of Approaching Events: 158 Events Posted This Week, Including 16 New Events
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

Published every Friday or last publication day of the week, o
ur overview of Approaching Events is organized to list c
ontinuously available training, training events, s
eminars & conferences, and 
webinars. 
   
If you wish to submit an event listing, please send it to to
jobs@fullcirclecompliance.eu
, composed in the below format:

    
#
 * Date: Location; “Event Title”; <Weblink>”; EVENT SPONSOR
 
   ”
*” = New or updated listing  

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

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

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

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

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

 

*
 Mar 9: Orlando, FL; “
Customs/Import Boot Camp
;” Partnering for Compliance

* Mar 11: Hoofddorp, NL; “
Export Control, Dual-use en Sancties
“; Fenex

* Mar 12-14: Dallas, TX;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
* Mar 12-14: Dallas, TX;

How to Build an Export Compliance Program
“; Commerce/BIS
*
 Mar 12: Hasselt, Belgium; “
Wegwijs in exportcontrole, dual-use goederen & embargo
“; Vlaams Netwerk van Ondernemingen
*
 
Mar 12: Sheffield, UK; “
Customs Procedures and Compliance in International Trade
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
Mar 12-13: Plano, TX; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
 

* Mar 13: Birmingham, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners course
“; UK/DIT
* Mar 14: Birmingham, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop
“; UK/DIT
* Mar 14: Birmingham, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Mar 14: Charlotte, NC; “
Importing Procedures
“; Global Training Center
*
 
Mar 14: Plano, TX; “
How to Build an Export Compliance Program
“; Commerce/BIS
*
 
Mar 15: Charlotte, NC; “
Importing 201
“; Global Training Center


* Mar 15: Leeds, UK; “
How to Complete Export Declarations
“; Chamber International

*
 
May 15-17; London, UK; “ICPA European Conference“; ICPA

* Mar 18-21: Las Vegas, NV; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI
*
 
Mar 19: Charlotte, NC; “
Tariff Classification“; 
Global Training Center
*
 
Mar 20: Charlotte, NC; “
NAFTA Rules of Origin
“; Global Training Center
*
 Mar 20: Miami, FL; “
CHINA TARIFFS/AD/CVD 101
“; Diaz Trade Consulting
*
 
Mar 20: St. Johns, Canada: “
Export Controls Seminar
“; Atlantic Canada
*
 
Mar 21: Charlotte, NC; “
Exporting Procedures
; Global Training Center

#
Mar 22: London, UK; “
Sanctions & Embargoes – Free Breakfast Seminar
“; Financial Crime Limited (FCL)

*
 
Mar 24-27: Orlando, FL; “
2019 ICPA Annual Conference

; ICPA
* Mar 25-27: San Francisco; “
Global Encryption, Cloud and Cyber Trade Controls Conference
“; Thomsen & Burke LLP;
* 
Mar 26: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting
“; Chamber International

*
 Mar 26-27: Pittsburgh, PA; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
*
 
Mar 26-27: Scottsdale, AZ; “
Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities
“; 
Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)

spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
 or 
866-238-4018
* 
Mar 27: Bristol, UK; “
Classification of Goods – Using Commodity and Tariff Codes
“; BusinessWest
* 
Mar 27: Bristol, UK; “
Incoterms® Rules 2010
“; BusinessWest

* Mar 27-28: San Francisco, CA; “Global Encryption, Cloud & Cyber Trade Controls;” American Conference Institute
*
 
Mar 28: Bristol, UK; “
Introduction to Export Procedures
“; BusinessWest

#
Mar 29: Leeds, UK; “
How to Complete Export Declarations
“; Chamber International

* Apr 1: Eindhoven, NL; “
Export Control, Dual-use en Sancties
“; Fenex
*
 
Apr 2: Brussels, Belgium; “
Dual-Use, Military Research & Misuse
“; Vrije Universiteit Brussel
*
 
Apr 2: Delft, The Netherlands; “
Export Compliance Training“; 
Netherlands Aerospace Group and Full Circle Compliance

* Apr 1-4: Washington, DC;ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI

Apr 3-4: Denver, CO;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* Apr 4-5; Miami, FL; “
CTPAT Training
“; SCS America
* 
Apr 9: Bruchem, The Netherlands; “
Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR from a Non-U.S. Perspective
“; Full Circle Compliance
*
 
Apr 9: Sheffield, UK; “
An Introduction to Export
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
Apr 9: London, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners Course
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Apr 10: London, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Apr 10: London, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
April 10: Sheffield, UK; “
Export Documentation – How and Why?” 
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

* 
Apr 16: Leeds, UK; “
Export Documentation
“; Chamber International

Apr 17: Miami, FL; “
CBP COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT
“; Diaz Trade Consulting
*
 Apr 17-18; Miramar, FL; “
11th Maritime Forwarding, Freight Logistics & Global Chain Supply Workshop
“; ABS Consulting;


Apr 17-18: Scottsdale, AZ; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

*
 
April 18: Sheffield, UK; “
International Trade Operations and Procedures (ITOPS)
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
* Apr 23-24: Portsmouth, NH;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
Apr 25: Portsmouth, NH;

Technology Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
*
 
Apr 25: London, UK; “
Making better License Applications
“; 
UK/DIT

*
 
Apr 30-May 1: Irvine, CA: “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce /BIS

*
 Apr 30-May 1: Nashville, TN: “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS);
*
 
May 1: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting & Incoterms
“; Chamber International

* May 2-3: Washington DC; “Economic Sanctions Enforcement and Compliance;” American Conference Institute
*
 
May 5: Munich, Germany; “
European and German Export Controls
“; AWA;

* May 5-7: Savannah, GA;2019 Spring Seminar“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)

May 6-7: Atlanta, GA; “
2019 Spring Conference
“; SIA
* 
May 7: Bruchem, The Netherlands; “
An Introduction to EU / Dutch Dual-Use and Military Export Controls
“; Full Circle Compliance
*
 
May 8: Southampton, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners course
“; UK/DIT
*
 
May 9: Southampton, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
May 9: Southampton, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
May 9: Sheffield, UK; “
Essential Incoterms – Getting it Rights
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
May 15: Bristol, UK; “
A Foundation Course in Importing
“; BusinessWest
*
 
May 15-17; London, UK; “ICPA European Conference“; ICPA
* 
May 16: Bristol, UK; “
Export Controls and Licensing
; BusinessWest
*
 
May 16: Bristol, UK; “
Inward Processing Relief
“; BusinessWest
*
 May 16: Hamburg, Germany; “
U.S. Export Controls and Embargoes & Sanctions for European Companies
“; Hamburger Zollakademie
*
 
May 16-17; Toronto, Canada; “ICPA Canada Conference“; ICPA
*
 
May 21: London, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

* Jun 5-6: Seattle, WA; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
*
 
Jun 7: Upper Marlboro, MD; “
2019 Spring Golf Outing
“; SIA

*
 
Jun 10: Cleveland, OH; “
Letters of Credit
“; Global Training Center
*
 
Jun 11: Cleveland, OH; “
Export Doc & Proc
“; Global Training Center
*
 
Jun 11: Sheffield, UK; “
Customs Procedures and Compliance in International Trade
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

#

Jun 11-12: Detroit, MI; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

*
 
Jun 12: Cleveland, OH; “
Tariff Classificatio
n“; Global Training Center
*
 
Jun 12: Derby, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners course
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jun 13: Cleveland, OH; “
NAFTA Rules of Origin
“; Global Training Center
*
 
Jun 13: Derby, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jun 13: Derby, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jun 13: Detroit, MI; “
How to Build an Export Compliance Program
“; Commerce/BIS
*
 
Jun 14: Cleveland, OH; “
Incoterms® 2010 Rules
“; Global Training 
* Jun 17-20: San Diego, CA; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls“; ECTI
*
 
Jul 3: Bristol, UK; “
Introduction to Export Procedures – Export Training
“; BusinessWest
*
 
Jul 3: Cambridge, UK;
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners Course
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jul 4: Cambridge, UK;
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jul 4: Cambridge, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jul 4: Bristol, UK;
Using Documentary Letters of Credit, Drafts and Bills”; 
BusinessWest
*
 
Jul 4: Sheffield, UK; “
An Introduction to Export
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
Jul 8-9: Seattle, WA: “
Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance
“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS);

Jul 8 – 10: National Harbour, MD; “
2019 Summer Back to Basics Conference
“; SIA
*
 
July 10: Sheffield, UK; “
Export Documentation – How and Why?” 
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

*
 
Jul 11: Birmingham, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

#
*
Jul 24-25: St. Louis, MO; “
 Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* Aug 20-21: Cincinnati, OH;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* Aug 20-21: Milpitas, CA;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“;
Commerce/BIS
* Aug 22: Milpitas, CA:

Encryption Controls
“;
Commerce/BIS

* Sep 8-11: Chicago, IL; “2019 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)

* Sep 16-19: Austin, TX; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls (Sep 18-19) Seminar Series
“; ECTI
; 540-433-3977
*
 
Sep 17: Sheffield, UK; “
Customs Procedures and Compliance in International Trade
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce


Sep 17-19: Annapolis, MD; “
The ECS 2nd Annual ITAR/EAR Symposium
“; ECS
*
 Sep 20: Las Vegas; “
EAR and OFAC Fundamentals: Export Control Of Dual-Use Equipment
“; Barnes & Thornburg LLP
*
 
Sep 25: Bristol, UK; “
Classification of Goods – Using Commodity and Tariff Codes”; 
BusinessWest
* 
Sep 25: Bristol, UK; “
Incoterms® Rules 2010
“; BusinessWest
*
 
Sep 25: London, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
; The Institute of Export and International Trade
*
 
Sep 25: Sheffield, UK; “
Essential Incoterms – Getting it Rights
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
Sep 26: Bristol, UK; “
Understanding The Paperwork
“; BusinessWest

* Sep 30 – Oct 3; Amsterdam, NL; “
ITAR Controls / EAR/OFAC Commercial and Military Controls
“; ECTI
; 540-433-3977
*
 
Oct 7: Munich, Germany; “
European and German Export Controls
“; AWA

* Oct 14-17; Columbus, OH; “
University Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI
*
 
Oct 17: Sheffield, UK; “
Export Documentation – How and Why?” 
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
Oct 27: Singapore; “
5th Asia Pacific Summit on Economic Sanctions Compliance and Enforcement
“; 
American Conference Institute


Oct 28-29: Washington D.C.; “
2019 Fall Advanced Conference
“; SIA

* Oct 28-31; Phoenix, AZ; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI
* Nov 11-14; Washington, DC; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI
*
 
Nov 20: Bristol, UK; “
Introduction to Export Procedures – Export Training
“; BusinessWest
*
 
Nov 21: Bristol, UK; “
A Foundation Course in Importing
“; BusinessWest

*
 
Nov 26: Bruchem, The Netherlands; “The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective“; Full Circle Compliance
* 
Nov 27: Bruchem, The Netherlands; ” The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective“; Full Circle Compliance
 
*
 
Nov 27: Manchester, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
“; The Institute of Export and International Trade
* Dec 4-5: New York, NY; “10th Annual New York Forum on Economic Sanctions;” American Conference Institute
*
 
Dec 4-5: Washington, DC; “
36th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
“; American Conference Institute

* Dec 9-12; Miami, FL; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI
*
 Dec 12-13; Washington D.C.; “
Coping with U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions 2019
“; Practicing Law Institute
 
2020

 
*
 
Jan 30-31: Houston, TX; “
14th Forum on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
“; 
American Conference Institute
 

 
Webinars 


 

*
 Mar 12: Webinar;
 
DIY Encryption Classification 2019 Edition“;
 ECTI; 540-433-3977
*
 Mar 13: Webinar: “
Cornerstones of ITAR Compliance: Licenses and Agreements
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

* 
Mar 13: Webinar: “
 How to Avoid Tariffs, Including Section 301 Duties, on Goods for the Handicapped
“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A

* Mar 14: Webinar:ITAR Training Basics – For Compliance Executives March“; CVG Strategy

*
 Mar 20: Webinar:
Cornerstones of ITAR Compliance: Administration, Documentation and Shipping
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

#

Mar 20: Webinar: “
 What You Need to Know About Customs and Trade Laws and the Agencies That Enforce Them
“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A


Mar 27: Webinar: “
Trade in Turmoil [Monthly Update]“; 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A


Apr 10: Webinar: “
Import Compliance Bootcamp
“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A

Apr 16: Webinar: “
CFIUS Update: New Requirements to Meet, New Industries Affected
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

Apr 23: Webinar: “
How to Improve Export Compliance with Effective Audits
“;ECTI; 540-433-3977

* Apr 23: Webinar: “ITAR Training Basics – For Compliance Executives April“; CVG Strategy


Apr 24: Webinar: “
Cornerstones of EAR Compliance: License Application Process & Export Clearance
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a120
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)


Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (8 Mar 1841 – 6 Mar 1935; was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932, and as Acting Chief Justice of the United States in January-February 1930. He is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his “clear and present danger” opinion for a unanimous Court in the 1919 case of 
Schenck v. United States, and is one of the most influential American common law judges, honored during his lifetime in Great Britain as well as the United States. Holmes retired from the court at the age of 90, making him the oldest justice in the Supreme Court’s history.)
  
– “A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”
  – “Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force.”
 
Friday’s proverbs:
* The most beautiful fig may contain a worm. | Zulu Proverb
* Change yourself and fortune will change. | Portuguese Proverb
* Who begins too much accomplishes little. | German Proverb

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

EN_a221. 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.
 

*
DHS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.  Implemented by Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection.
  – Last Amendment:
14 Jan 2019: 84 FR 112-116: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material from Bulgaria; and 84 FR 107-112: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological Material From China.
 

DOC EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR)
: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, 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 Commerce, 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 (1 Jan 2019) 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
.  
 

DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM)
: DoD 5220.22-M. Implemented by Dep’t of Defense.
  – 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: 5 March 2019) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in 
Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR 
(“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR is a 361-page Word document containing 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 download, 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 2019: 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 Update: 
7 Mar 2019: 
Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1903  
[contains 67 ABI records and 13 harmonized tariff records].

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

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

EN_a322
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)
 

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

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

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, Alex Witt. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 6,500 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOE/NRC, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, FAR/DFARS, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission, provided attribution is given to “The Export/Import Daily Bugle of (date)”. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.  If you would to submit material for inclusion in the The Export/Import Daily Update (“Daily Bugle”), please find instructions here.

* CAVEAT: The contents cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.

* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website.

* BACK ISSUES: An archive of Daily Bugle publications from 2005 to present is available HERE.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top