19-0312 Tuesday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0312 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

  1. DHS/CBP Amends Regulations, Extends Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material from Honduras
  2. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on 21st Century Customs Framework
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. President Continues National Emergency with Respect to Iran
  1. EU Sanctions: “UK Publishes Post-Brexit Sanctions Regulations on Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan”
  2. SCMP: “China Sells Arms to More Countries and Is World’s Biggest Exporter of Armed Drones, Says Swedish Think Tank SIPRI”
  1. D.A. Ring & J. Clark: “Un-Empowered Official: Department of State Fines Exporter for Unqualified EO”
  2. J. Reeves & K. Heubert: “A Comparison of Export Authorizations Under the ITAR and EAR”
  3. J. Sturtevant: “‘Technology’ – Part II: Development, Production, & Use”
  1. ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges” on 30 Apr – 1 May in Nashville, TN
  2. ICPA Presents “2019 EU Conference”, 15-17 May in London
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (12 Mar 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 


Federal Register, 12 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.]
84 FR 8807-8809: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material From Honduras
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect an extension of import restrictions on certain archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material from Honduras. The restrictions, which were originally imposed by CBP Dec. 04-08 and last extended by CBP Dec. 14-03, are due to expire March 12, 2019. The Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, has made the requisite determination for extending the import restrictions that previously existed and entering into a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Honduras to reflect the extension of these import restrictions. The new MOU supersedes the existing agreement that became effective on March 12, 2014. Accordingly, these import restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to reflect this further extension through March 12, 2024. CBP Dec. 14-03 contains the amended Designated List of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material from Honduras to which the restrictions apply.
* DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2019.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Branch Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0215, ototrrculturalproperty@cbp.dhs.gov. For operational aspects, Christopher N. Robertson, Branch Chief, Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade, (202) 325-6586, CTAC@cbp.dhs.gov.
   On December 14, 2018, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendations by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, determined that the cultural heritage of Honduras continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material and that the import restrictions should be extended for an additional five years. Subsequently, a new MOU was concluded between the United States and Honduras. The new MOU supersedes and replaces the prior MOU and extends the import restrictions that went into effect under the prior MOU for an additional five years. This MOU is titled: “Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Republic of Honduras Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Honduras and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials from the Colonial Period of Honduras.” Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions.
   The restrictions on the importation of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material are to continue in effect through March 12, 2024. Importation of such material from Honduras continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
   The Designated List and additional information may also be found here by selecting the material for “Honduras.” …
Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
   Approved: March 7, 2019.
Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury.

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

Federal Register, 12 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.]
84 FR 8884-8885: Announcing the Re-Opening of the Public Comment Period for 21st Century Customs Framework
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
* ACTION: Re-opening of comment period.
* SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is announcing the re-opening of the public comment period on the six key themes identified by “The 21st Century Customs Framework” initiative.
* DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2019. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brandon Lord, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 950N, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 325-6432 or email 21CCF@cbp.dhs.gov.
   CBP is cognizant of the need to stay modern in order to meet the challenges of an evolving trade landscape. New actors, industries, and modes of conducting business have emerged, disrupting the traditional global supply chain. To continue to effectively fulfill CBP’s mission, CBP is pursuing an initiative titled “The 21st Century Customs Framework.” “The 21st Century Customs Framework” will seek to address and enhance numerous aspects of CBP’s trade mission to better position the agency to operate in the 21st century trade environment.
   Through preliminary efforts, CBP has identified key themes for which CBP seeks public input:
    (1) Emerging Roles in the Global Supply Chain;
    (2) Intelligent Enforcement;
    (3) Cutting-Edge Technology;
    (4) Data Access and Sharing;
    (5) 21st Century Processes; and
    (6) Self-Funded Customs Infrastructure.
Brief descriptions of each theme are provided below along with the request for public comments on questions posed by CBP related to each theme. …
   Dated: March 6, 2019.
Cynthia F. Whittenburg, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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

* Commerce; Industry and Security Bureau; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals [Pub. Date: 13 Mar 2019.]:
  – License Exemptions and Exclusions
  – Offsets in Military Exports

* Justice; Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau; RULES; Bump-Stock-Type Devices [Pub. Date: 14 Mar 2019.] 


* President; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS; Iran; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of March 12, 2019) [Pub. Date: 13 Mar 2019.]

[Editor’s Note: This notice is included in today’s Daily Bugle, item #6.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

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

The White House, 12 Mar 2019.)
On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran.  On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959, imposing more comprehensive sanctions on Iran to further respond to this threat.  On August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059, consolidating and clarifying those previous orders.  The President took additional steps pursuant to this national emergency in Executive Order 13553 of September 28, 2010; Executive Order 13574 of May 23, 2011; Executive Order 13590 of November 20, 2011; Executive Order 13599 of February 5, 2012; Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012; Executive Order 13608 of May 1, 2012; Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012; Executive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012; Executive Order 13645 of June 3, 2013; Executive Order 13716 of January 16, 2016; and Executive Order 13846 of August 6, 2018.
As outlined in National Security Presidential Memorandum-11 of May 8, 2018 (Ceasing United States Participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Taking Additional Action to Counter Iran’s Malign Influence and Deny Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon), the actions and policies of the Government of Iran, including its proliferation and development of missiles and other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, its network and campaign of regional aggression, its support for terrorist groups, and the malign activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its surrogates continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
For these reasons, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2019.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12957.  The emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, in connection with the hostage crisis.  This renewal, therefore, is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 2018.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
March 12, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 


NWS_a17. EU Sanctions: “UK Publishes Post-Brexit Sanctions Regulations on Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan”
EU Sanctions
, 8 Mar 2019.)
The UK government has now published regulations under the 
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018
 on the following regimes: 
  – The Democratic Republic of Congo (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, 
SI 2019/433
. See 
Explanatory Memorandum
  – South Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, 
SI 2019/438
. See 
Explanatory Memorandum
These regulations will not come until force until Exit Day in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a Brexit deal. The UK has now published post-Brexit regulations on five sanctioned states: Burma, Iran (Human Rights), Venezuela, and the above. See 
previous post

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

NWS_a28. SCMP: “China Sells Arms to More Countries and is World’s Biggest Exporter of Armed Drones, Says Swedish Think Tank SIPRI”
(Source: South China Morning Post, 12 Mar 2019.) [Excerpts.]
China is selling arms to more countries and is now the world’s leading exporter of armed drones, according to a report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on Monday.
But the latest data from the Swedish think tank shows Chinese arms exports increased by a relatively low 2.7 per cent in the period from 2014 to 2018, compared to the previous five years.
Weapons exports from the United States, however, jumped 29 per cent in the 2014-18 period from 2009-13.
Meanwhile, China expanded its customer base to 53 countries in 2014-18, up from 41 in the previous five years. …

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


* Authors: David A. Ring, Esq.,
, +1 203 498 4377; and Jared Clark, Esq.,
, +1 203 498 4410. Both of Wiggin and Dana LLP.
A recent enforcement action by the Department of State for alleged violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) yields important lessons for exporters with respect to the necessity of appointing qualified export compliance personnel and the value in immediately submitting voluntary disclosures of export violations upon their discovery.
In February 2019, Darling Industries, Inc. (Darling) entered into an 18-month consent agreement with the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to settle alleged ITAR violations committed by Darling’s subsidiary, R.E. Darling Co., Inc. (R.E. Darling), relating to unauthorized exports of defense articles, including ITAR-controlled technical data, the unauthorized furnishing of defense services, and the failure to appoint a qualified Empowered Official. Under the terms of the consent agreement, Darling agreed to pay a fine of $400,000, $200,000 of which was suspended on the condition that Darling apply the amount to remedial compliance measures, which include designating an Internal Special Compliance Officer and undertaking an export control classification review of all items manufactured by the company.
According to the consent agreement, R.E. Darling, a manufacturer and exporter of specialty fabricated rubber and composite products, became aware of the violations as the result of a compliance program review conducted by an outside consulting firm that uncovered “decades of systematic, reoccurring violations” of the ITAR. R.E. Darling disclosed to DDTC that the company had exported, without authorization, thousands of pounds of ethylene propylene diene monomer compound (EPDM), a Kevlar-filled raw material used as a missile case insulator and missile motor insulator, as well as related technical data and defense services, to an aerospace company in Canada for the production of rocket motors for end use by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The sales associate handling R.E. Darling’s exports of EPDM to the Canadian aerospace company believed that the compound was commercial and exported the EPDM to Canada as “No License Required” under the Department of Commerce’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR). R.E. Darling also disclosed that it had exported without authorization oxygen breathing hoses and components to several countries for end use on military aircraft. The sales staff responsible for exporting the hoses were not aware that the products were ITAR controlled and had no ITAR compliance training.
Darling’s consent agreement with DDTC highlights the perils of appointing an unqualified Empowered Official (EO). The ITAR requires companies that manufacture or export defense articles to appoint one or more EOs to oversee their ITAR-related activities; among other requirements, an EO must be in a position of authority for policy or management within the company and must understand the provisions and requirements of export control statutes and regulations as well as the potential civil, criminal, and administrative penalties that can result from export violations. DDTC’s proposed charging letter states that R.E. Darling’s EO “was not in a position of having authority for policy or management,” and, because R.E. Darling did not provide the EO any ITAR training, the EO “did not understand the provisions and requirements of the various export statutes and regulations”. The Darling consent agreement makes clear that DDTC-registered companies must appoint EOs with adequate authority and export-related expertise and cannot satisfy their obligations under the ITAR merely by designating an employee as an EO in title only.
DDTC’s enforcement action against Darling also underscores the value to companies of immediately disclosing the discovery of export violations. The ITAR provides that the Department of State may consider a voluntary disclosure as a mitigating factor in determining any administrative penalties to be imposed, and that companies should notify DDTC immediately after discovering a violation. While Darling did voluntarily disclose the discovery of export violations to DDTC, it submitted the disclosure 22 months after it discovered the violations. Therefore, as the proposed charging letter states, even though the Department of State considered the voluntary disclosure as a mitigating factor, the Department also considered the delayed disclosure as a countervailing factor. Companies that wish to maximize the value of voluntary disclosure as a mitigating factor should disclose violations as soon as they are discovered, or risk incurring greater penalties due to delayed disclosure.
Export control statutes and regulations are complex and subject to frequent changes. To avoid running afoul of the ITAR and risking penalties such as those imposed on Darling – or greater – companies must invest in a culture of compliance by appointing qualified compliance personnel and providing adequate training throughout the organization.

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

COM_a210. J. Reeves & K. Heubert: “A Comparison of Export Authorizations Under the ITAR and EAR”
(Source: Reeves & Dola LLP Alert, 12 Mar 2019.) [Available by subscription via info@reevesdola.com.]
* Authors: Johanna Reeves, Esq., jreeves@reevesdola.com; and Katherine Heubert, Esq., kheubert@reevesdola.com. Both of Reeves & Dola LLP.
In anticipation of the government publishing the final rules to transition most firearms and ammunition away from the export controls of the U.S. Department of State and over to the Department of Commerce, we continue our series reviewing the key differences between the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). In this alert, we will examine how export authorizations of the two licensing regimes compare.
Before we do that, however, we will address very briefly the hold that Sen. Menendez placed on the Department of State’s Section 38(f) congressional notification of the proposed revisions to the U.S. Munitions List Categories I-III. Sen. Menedez announced the hold on February 26, 2019 out of “concern about a proposal to drastically weaken firearms export regulations.” (Ranking Member’s Press, “Menedez Annoiunces Hold on Trump Admin’s Proposed Move to Weaken Regulatory Control Over U.S. Guns Sales Abroad,” February 26, 2019). In his letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Sen. Menendez outlined his two major concerns about the proposed rules: (1) removal of firearms exports from Congressional information and review, and (2) the proliferation of 3D gun printing technical information. The 38(f) notification was supposed to run (March 5), so we should known soon how the Administration has responded to the issues Sen. Menendez raised.
So now we will continue onward and upward with our series comparing the EAR to the ITAR. Below is another chart showing the differences between exports of defense articles (USML articles) under the ITAR, and exports of commercial items, dual-use items and certain military items subject to the EAR.
Export license applications under both the ITAR and EAR are submitted via electronic filing, unless otherwise authorized by the respective agency. ITAR license applications are submitted through the Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC) DTrade system and EAR license applications are submitted through the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Simplified Network Application Processing system (SNAP-R). One major distinction between the electronic filing systems, one which industry certainly will enjoy, is that there is no fee associated with submitting license applications through SNAP-R, nor is there requirement to register as an exporter or manufacturer (or pay an associated fee) with BIS. All an exporter needs to do is get established on the SNAP-R system, which is an on-line process. This difference alone could save certain members of industry a fair amount of money.
As you will also see below, all types of EAR export transactions that require a license utilize a single license form from BIS. This single form is called the Form BIS-748P: Multipurpose Application. Unlike the ITAR, the license application does not need be limited to a single shipment (or purchase order) but may represent a reasonable estimate of items to be shipped throughout the validity of the license and can cover a variety of types of transactions. EAR Part 748 provides detailed guidance for completing export applications.
Permanent Export (Hardware or Information)
DSP-5 (or exemption) 
(or exception)
Temporary Export (Hardware)
DSP-73 (or exemption)
(or exception)
Temporary Import
DSP-61 (or exemption)
See Note 1 below
Distribution (Hardware)
Warehouse & Distribution Agreement
See Note 2 below
Defense Service
Type of authorization depends on the activity covered:
DSP-5 (limited use for “exceptional cases,” see ITAR 124.1(a)).
Technical Assistance Agreement (agreement for performance of a defense service or disclosure of technical data; no production rights or manufacturing know-how).
Manufacturing License Agreement (authorization to manufacture defense articles abroad).
See Note 3 below
Paper letter submission (if license required).
See Note 4 below
Note 1
: The temporary entry of EAR-controlled items into the U.S. does not require a license from BIS (though it may trigger other requirements from different U.S. agencies (e.g.

, ATF for short barrel firearms)). However, the return of the item to its originating source or other foreign location may require authorization from BIS, if a license is required to that country. The return (export) of the temporarily imported item would normally require a Form
BIS-748P license (or exception). But see EAR
 § 740.9(b), Exports of items temporarily in the United States, which authorizes use of exception TMP for return without a license of some items temporarily in the United States.

Note 2

The export of hardware is a controlled event under the EAR. If you require a license to provide the hardware for the identified end-uses or end-users, then complete and submit a Form BIS-748P license application that identifies the distribution chain.
Note 3
 As we noted in our previous alert, generally speaking, there is no analogous concept to defense services under the EAR. The EAR focuses on the provision of EAR-controlled “technology” when one is giving assistance or simply disclosing the “technology.” If you require a license to provide “technology” for the identified end-use or end-user, then complete and submit a Form BIS-748P license application. We note, however, that the EAR (section 744.6(a)(2)) prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in activities, including services, that directly support certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological end-uses without a license.
Note 4
 The EAR does not regulate “brokering” of items subject to the EAR. However, for firearms and ammunition moving over to the CCL, the proposed rules indicated that all defense articles described in either the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL) or the USML are subject to the brokering controls administered by DDTC in Part 129 of the ITAR. The final rules, once published, should be carefully studied to determine how brokering requirements under the ITAR may impact transactions that are subject to the EAR.
As you can see, the forms of export authorizations differ between the ITAR and the EAR. You should also know that the supporting documentary requirements under the EAR are also different from what the ITAR requires. Part 748 in the EAR provides detailed guidance to aid in determining what, if any supporting documentation is required for a particular type of export transaction. 
The good news is that under the EAR, export license preparation should be more streamlined, as there is only one form that industry will have to use. However, exporters must still know the chain of custody, including the intended end-user and ultimate end-use. As we have noted many times before, the transition of items from the USML to the CCL is not a decontrol. Reviewing the transaction for license requirements will continue to be necessary.
Next up – we will analyze noteworthy export enforcement activity under the EAR.

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

COM_a311. J. Sturtevant: “‘Technology’ – Part II: Development, Production, & Use”
(Source: CTP, 12 Mar 2019.)
* Author: John Sturtevant, Esq., Commonwealth Trading Partners (CTP), Washington DC.
We’re back with Part III of our blog series in understanding “technology” controlled under the EAR. In Part I, we explored the concept of controlled technology. Then, in Part II, we examined the three different types of technology (“development,” “production,” and “use”) and how they are applied in practice. Now, in this Part III post, we’re examining what it means when an ECCN controls technology that is “required” for the development, production, or use of an item on the CCL (and also what it means when a control entry doesn’t include the defined term “required”).
Let’s first have a quick recap. Under the EAR, “technology” is information, in any tangible or intangible form, that is necessary for the “development,” “production,” or “use” of an item on the CCL.
  – “Development” technology is related to all stages prior to serial production.
  – “Production” technology includes all production stages, such as product engineering, manufacture, integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, and quality assurance.
  – “Use” technology relates to operation, installation (including on-site installation), maintenance (checking), repair, overhaul and refurbishing.
As discussed in Part I, the drafters of the EAR point out to readers that controlled “technology” is defined in what is called the General Technology Note (GTN). Here’s what the GTN says, in pertinent part:
The export of “technology” that is “required” for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of items on the Commerce Control List is controlled according to the provisions in each Category.
Next, the drafters of the EAR have defined the term “required” as follows:
As applied to “technology,” [“required”] refers to only that portion of “technology” which is
peculiarly responsible for achieving or exceeding the controlled performance levels, characteristics or functions. Such “required” “technology” may be shared by different products.
This EAR definition goes on to provide the following example:
* Assume product “X” is controlled on the CCL if it operates at or above 400 MHz and is not controlled if it operates below 400 MHz.
  – If production technologies “A,” “B,” and “C” allow production at no more than 399 MHz, then technologies “A,” “B,” and “C” are not “required” to produce the controlled product “X”.
  – If technologies “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “E” are used together, a manufacturer can produce product “X” that operates at or above 400 MHz. In this example, technologies “D” and “E” are peculiarly responsible for making the controlled product and are thus “required” technology.
In an attempt to help clarify these matters for exporters, BIS published an Advisory Opinion in March 2014, expounding on the scope of the GTN. In that Advisory Opinion, BIS concluded that,
The EAR’s definition of “technology” states that “[c]ontrolled ‘technology’ is defined in the General Technology Note . . . and the GTN states that “[t]he export of ‘ technology’ that is ‘required’ for the ‘development’, ‘production’, or ‘use’ of items on the Commerce Control List is controlled according to the provisions in each Category.” The EAR does not limit its definition of technology or the GTN to only those technologies controlled in the EAR pursuant to the [Wassenaar Arrangement]. Therefore, the GTN and the EAR’s definition of “required” apply to all references to ”technology” in all the ECCNs on the CCL.
In other words, the GTN and the EAR-defined term “required” apply to all ECCNs on the CCL that control ”technology,” regardless of whether the ECCN specifically refers to the GTN or uses the term “required.”
Next time, in Part IV of this series, we’ll look at the EAR’s license exceptions related to controlled “technology:” Technology and Software under Restriction (TSR) and Technology and Software-Unrestricted (TSU). Be sure to subscribe to our blog so you can get the fourth and final post in our “technology” series delivered straight to your inbox.

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


TE_a112. ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges” on 30 Apr – 1 May in Nashville, TN

(Source: Suzanne Palmer,
* What: Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges; Nashville, TN
* When: April 30-May 1, 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer; Lisa Bencivenga; Timothy Mooney, Debi Davis, Matthew McGrath, Matt Doyle
* Register here or by calling 866-238-4018 or email spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com

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

TE_a213. ICPA Presents “2019 EU Conference”, 15-17 May in London

(Source: ICPA)
* What: 2019 EU Conference
  – Import and Export Track (click here for the agenda)
Professional Speakers
  – Hot Industry Topics
* When: 15-17 May 2019
* Where: The Tower Hotel, London, United Kingdom
* Sponsor: International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Information & Registration: Click here

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


* Sir Richard Steele
(12 Mar 1672 – 1 Sep 1729; was an Irish writer, playwright, and politician, remembered as co-founder, with his friend Joseph Addison, of the magazine The Tatler.)
  – “Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.”
* Earl Nightingale (12 Mar 1921 – 25 Mar 1989; was an American radio speaker and author, dealing mostly with the subjects of human character development, motivation, and meaningful existence. He was the voice during the early 1950s of Sky King, the hero of a radio adventure series, and was a WGN radio program host from 1950 to 1956. Nightingale was the author of The Strangest Secret, which economist Terry Savage has termed “…one of the great motivational books of all time”.)
  – “Don’t let the fear of the time it will take to accomplish something stand in the way of your doing it. The time will pass anyway; we might just as well put that passing time to the best possible use.”
  – “All you need is the plan, the road map, and the courage to press on to your destination.”

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

. 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:

12 Mar 2019: 84 FR 8807-8809: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material From Honduras 


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.   


  – 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 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 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: 15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm.  


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 Mar 2019) 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 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 Amendment: 7 Mar 2019: H
armonized 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.

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

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 6,500 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 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