;

19-0517 Friday “Daily Bugle”

19-0517 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 17 May 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. Contact us for advertising  

inquiries and rates
.

  1. President Reduces Permitted Volume of Petroleum Purchased from Iran
  2. USTR Seeks Comments on Modification of Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  4. EU Council Establishes Framework to Impose Sanctions Against Cyber Attackers 
  5. UK DIT Releases Updated OGEL for Export of Dual-Use Items to EU Member States 
  1. NPR: “U.S. Move to Isolate Huawei Sends Ripples Through Global Supply Chain” 
  2. Reuters: “Trump Declares Some Auto Imports Pose National Security Threat” 
  3. WorldECR: “U.S. Bill Would Lean on Five Eye Partners to Ban PLA-Linked Researchers” 
  1. G. Kelley: “Broad New Trade Restrictions on Huawei to Take Effect May 21” 
  2. J.E. Smith, M.V. Dobson & K.G. Readling: “Sanctions Enforcement Tips from Former OFAC’ers” 
  3. M. Volkov: “Episode 89 – DOJ Issues New Guidance on Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” 
  4. M. Peterson & K. Konar: “Navigating Export Compliance and Anti-Discrimination: What DOJ’s Recent Settlement with Honda Aircraft Teaches Us” 
  1. FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 27 Nov in Bruchem, the Netherlands 
  2. List of Approaching Events: 149 Events Posted This Week, Including 24 New Events 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (5 Apr 2019), DOC/EAR (14 May 2019), DOC/FTR (24 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), DOE/AFAEC (23 Feb 2015), DOE/EINEM (20 Nov 2018), DOJ/ATF (14 Mar 2019), DOS/ITAR (19 Apr 2019), DOT/FACR/OFAC (29 Apr 2019), HTSUS (13 May 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1
.
President Reduces Permitted Volume of Petroleum Purchased from Iran  

(Source:
Federal Register, 17 May 2019.)
 
84 FR 22327: Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, after carefully considering the reports submitted to the Congress by the Energy Information Administration, including the report submitted in April 2019, and other relevant factors such as global economic conditions, increased oil production by the United States and certain other countries, the global level of spare petroleum production capacity, and the availability of strategic reserves, I determine, pursuant to section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, and consistent with prior determinations, that there is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions.

        

(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 29, 2019

 
back to top
 

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

EXIM_a1

2
USTR Seeks Comments on Modification of Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation

(Source: Federal Register, 17 May 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
84 FR 22564-22639: Request for Comments Concerning Proposed Modification of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation
 
* AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
* ACTION: Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
* SUMMARY: In accordance with the direction of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative (Trade Representative) proposes a modification of the action being taken in this Section 301 investigation of the acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The proposed modification is to take further action in the form of an additional ad valorem duty of up to 25 percent on products of China with an annual trade value of approximately $300 billion. The products subject to this proposed modification are classified in the HTSUS subheadings set out in the Annex to this notice. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking public comment and will hold a public hearing regarding this proposed modification.
* DATES: To be assured of consideration, you must submit comments and responses in accordance with the following schedule:
  – June 10, 2019: Due date for filing requests to appear and a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing.
  – June 17, 2019: Due date for submission of written comments.
  – June 17, 2019: The Section 301 Committee will convene a public hearing in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, that begins at 9:30 a.m.
  – Seven days after the last day of the public hearing: Due date for
submission of post-hearing rebuttal comments.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Assistant General Counsels Arthur Tsao or Megan Grimball, or Director of Industrial Goods Justin Hoffmann at (202) 395-5725. For questions on customs classification, contact traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
 
Annex …
 
Joseph Barloon, General Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

 
back to top
 

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a13
. Items Scheduled
for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions

(Source:
Federal Register
)

 
* Commerce/BIS; RULES; Addition of Entities to the Entity List [Pub. Date: 21 May 2019. The prebublication states: “In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei) to the Entity List. The U.S. Government has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. BIS is also adding nonU.S. affiliates of Huawei to the Entity List because those affiliates pose a significant risk of involvement in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Huawei will be listedon the Entity Listunder the destination of China.
  This final rule also adds to the Entity List sixtyeight nonU.S. affiliates of Huawei located in twentysix destinations: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, Germany, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Madagascar, [the] Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and Vietnam.“]
 
* Treasury/OFAC; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Pub. Date: 20 May 2019.]

 
back to top
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a24
. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

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

OGS_a35.
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source:
State/DDTC
)

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

OGS_a4
6.
EU Council Establishes Framework to Impose Sanctions Against Cyber Attackers

(Source:
Council of the European Union
, 17 May 2019.)
 
On 17 May 2019, the Council established a framework which allows the EU to impose targeted restrictive measures to deter and respond to cyber-attacks which constitute an external threat to the EU or its member states, including cyber-attacks against third States or international organizations where restricted measures are considered necessary to achieve the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
 
Cyber-attacks falling within the scope of this new sanctions regime are those which have significant impact and which:
 
  • originate or are carried out from outside the EU or
  • use infrastructure outside the EU or
  • are carried out by persons or entities established or operating outside the EU or
  • are carried out with the support of person or entities operating outside the EU.
 
Attempted cyber-attacks with a potentially significant effect are also covered by this sanctions regime.
 
More specifically, this framework allows the EU for the first time to impose sanctions on persons or entities that are responsible for cyber-attacks or attempted cyber-attacks, who provide financial, technical or material support for such attacks or who are involved in other ways. Sanctions may also be imposed on persons or entities associated with them.  
 
Restrictive measures include a ban on persons travelling to the EU, and an asset freeze on persons and entities. In addition, EU persons and entities are forbidden from making funds available to those listed. …

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

OGS_a5
7.
UK DIT Releases Updated OGEL for Export of Dual-Use Items to EU Member States
(Source:
UK DIT
, 16 May 2019.)
 
The Department for International Trade (DIT) has updated the
open general export license (OGEL) for export of dual-use items to EU member states
.
 
The list of items excluded from the scope of this license has been amended to ensure the OGEL is in line with Article 9.4a of Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009, as retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (‘the Retained Regulation’). This means the OGEL excludes items listed in Annex IIg of the Retained Regulation. As a result, an individual license will be required for export of any of these items to the EU or the Channel Islands once the UK leaves the EU.
 
For information, Annex IIg covers:
  • all items specified in Annex IV,
  • 0C001 ‘Natural uranium’ or ‘depleted uranium’ or thorium in the form of metal, alloy, chemical compound or concentrate and any other material containing one or more of the foregoing,
  • 0C002 ‘Special fissile materials’ other than those specified in Annex IV,
  • 0D001 ‘Software’ specially designed or modified for the ‘development’, ‘production’ or ‘…’ of goods specified in Category 0, in so far as it relates to 0C001 or to those items of 0C002 that are excluded from Annex IV,
  • 0E001 ‘Technology’ in accordance with the Nuclear Technology Note for the ‘development’, ‘production’ or ‘…’ of goods specified in Category 0, in so far as it relates to 0C001 or to those items of 0C002 that are excluded from Annex IV,
  • 1A102 Resaturated pyrolised carbon-carbon components designed for space launch vehicles specified in 9A004 or sounding rockets specified in 9A104,
  • 1C351 Human and animal pathogens and ‘toxins’,
  • 1C353 Genetic elements and genetically modified organisms,
  • 1C354 Plant pathogens,
  • 1C450.a.1. amiton: O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl] phosphorothiolate (78-53-5) and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts,
  • 1C450.a.2. PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (382-21-8),
  • 7E104 ‘Technology’ for the integration of flight control, guidance and propulsion data into a flight management system for optimization of rocket system trajectory,
  • 9A009.a. Hybrid rocket propulsion systems with total impulse capacity exceeding 1.1 MNs,
  • 9A117 Staging mechanisms, separation mechanisms and interstages usable in ‘missiles’
 
In-force Date
 
This license will come into force if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a018.
NPR: “U.S. Move to Isolate Huawei Sends Ripples Through Global Supply Chain”

(Source:
NPR
, 16 May 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
A Trump administration decision to restrict the sale of U.S. technology to Chinese telecommunications company Huawei will disrupt global supply chains, say analysts, ramping up pressure on U.S. allies reluctant to join in efforts to shut out Huawei from advanced 5G mobile networks.
 
The Commerce Department on Wednesday
announced it would add
Shenzhen, China-based Huawei and its subsidiaries to a U.S. “entity list” – meaning it can keep Huawei from buying U.S. technology if “the sale or transfer would harm U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.”
 
The listing came the same day President Trump
signed an executive order
enabling the government to block U.S. firms from buying foreign-made telecom equipment if it is deemed a national security threat – a move also widely viewed as directed at Huawei. …

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

NWS_a29.
Reuters: “Trump Declares Some Auto Imports Pose National Security Threat”

(Source:
Reuters
, 17 May 2019.)
 
President Donald Trump on Friday declared that some imported vehicles and parts pose a national security threat but delayed a decision for as long as six months on whether to impose tariffs to allow for more time for trade talks with the European Union and Japan.
 
The unprecedented designation of foreign vehicles imported to the United States from some of its closest allies sparked anger from automakers, dealers and foreign governments after a White House document hinted it would seek voluntary export quotas on autos from U.S. trading partners.
 
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said on Twitter that “we completely reject the notion that our car exports are a national security threat. The EU is prepared to negotiate a limited trade agreement (including) cars, but not WTO-illegal managed trade.”
 
World Trade Organization rules bar voluntary export restraints and the EU has repeatedly said it would not agree to any quotas on auto exports.
 
Trump’s decision, at least for now, averts what was shaping up to be a new dramatic escalation in the Trump administration’s trade disputes around the world, including a trade war with China.
 
The president had faced a Saturday deadline to make a decision on recommendations by the Commerce Department to protect the U.S. auto industry from imports on national security grounds and imposing tariffs of up to 25 percent.
 
Trump directed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to pursue negotiations with the EU, Japan and any other country he deemed appropriate and report back within 180 days. If no deal is reached, Trump will decide by then “whether and what further action needs to be taken.”
 
In a proclamation released Friday, Trump agreed with a Commerce Department study that found some imported cars and trucks are “weakening our internal economy” and threaten to harm national security, but it stopped short of naming specific vehicles or parts.
 
Automakers warned the tariffs cost hundreds of thousands of auto jobs, dramatically raise prices on vehicles and threaten industry spending on self-driving cars.
 
“The truth stands: imported autos and auto parts are simply not a national security threat,” said Cody Lusk, president of the American International Automobile Dealers Association. “Using this spurious claim as justification to force our trading partners into new negotiations will only create more uncertainty for America’s entire auto industry.”
 
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing General Motors Co, Volkswagen AG, Toyota Motor Corp and others, said the companies remained “deeply concerned that the administration continues to consider imposing auto tariffs.”
 
The group said that since 2017 automakers have invested $22.8 billion in new and existing facilities in the United States, but “increased auto tariffs threaten to undo this economic progress. At the end of the day, you can have tariffs or investment, but you can’t have both.”
 
A revised U.S. trade deal with Mexico and Canada signed in November effectively shields existing imports from the two nations to the United States from national security tariffs.
 
The auto tariffs face strong opposition in Congress, including from many prominent Republicans. The White House has refused to release the auto import study to Congress.
 
Trump’s proclamation said “domestic conditions of competition must be improved by reducing imports” and said a strong U.S. auto sector is vital to U.S. military superiority.
 
The reports cited statistics that U.S.-owned companies’ share of the U.S. automobile market has declined from 67 percent, or 10.5 million units produced and sold in the United States, in 1985, to 22 percent, or 3.7 million units produced and sold in the United States, in 2017.
 
At the same time, the Commerce Department report stated that imports nearly doubled – from 4.6 million units to 8.3 million units.
 
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Trump that “successful negotiations could allow American-owned automobile producers to achieve long-term economic viability and increase R&D (research and development) spending to develop cutting-edge technologies that are critical to the defense industry.”
 
The report called the European Union and Japan “protected foreign markets” that “impose significant barriers to automotive imports from the United States, severely disadvantaging American-owned producers.”
 
The United States also has barriers to imports, most notably a 25 percent tariff on pickup trucks from outside North America.

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

NWS_a310.
WorldECR: “
U.S. Bill Would Lean on Five Eye Partners to Ban PLA-Linked Researchers”

(Source:
WorldECR
, 16 May 2019.)
 
Individuals sponsored by the Chinese military would be refused student or research visas to the United States.
 
A new bipartisan bill, presented simultaneously to the US Senate and House of Representatives would, among other things, require “the U.S. government to develop a list of scientific and engineering institutions affiliated with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The bill would prohibit individuals employed or sponsored by these Chinese military institutions from receiving student or research visas to the United States.”
 
The bill also states that “Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom [members, with the United States, of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence-sharing network, ‘should take [similar measures] to address security concerns posed by researchers and scientists affiliated with, or funded by, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”
 
The bill’s sponsors say, “Chinese military scientists continue to research advanced dual-use technology in the United States and other western countries. According to some estimates, over the past decade, the People’s Liberation Army has sent more than 2,500 military engineers and scientists to study abroad. At times, these scientists have not disclosed their connection to the Chinese military.”
 
In a statement drafted to coincide with the publication of the bill, US Senator Ted Cruz said: “America must be vigilant in protecting the research, training, expertise, and innovation that the Chinese Communist Party has been stealing and exploiting for military and industrial purposes. I am hopeful my colleagues will move swiftly to pass this bill to safeguard America’s national security.”
 
– See:
here
.

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

COMCOMMENTARY

COM_a011. G. Kelley: “Broad New Trade Restrictions on Huawei to Take Effect May 21”

(Source: Editor, 17 May 2019.)

 
* Author: Glen N. Kelley, Esq.,
gkelley@jacobsonburton.com
, 212-658-0601. Of Jacobson Burton Kelley PLLC.
 
The US government has announced two major actions that are expected, within the next few days, to result in major new restrictions on transactions with Huawei that involve US persons or US products and technologies.

Addition to Entity List  


Yesterday, May 16, the US Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced that it will place Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Huawei) and many of its affiliates on a US list of restricted parties call the “Entity List”. While the press has widely reported this to have already taken place, it appears it will not take effect until Tuesday, May 21, 2019.

Background   


Commerce issued a regulatory rule on 16 May 2019 stating that Commerce will add Huawei and 69 of its affiliates, located in 26 countries, to the Entity List. While the advance copy of the rule is stated to be effective immediately, it will not be effective until it is published in the Federal Register, which is expected on Tuesday, May 21.

The stated reason for this action is that “Huawei is engaged in activities that are contrary to US national security or foreign policy interest”, including alleged violations of US sanctions on Iran set out in an indictment released in January 2019. The Commerce announcement is here. This action appears to preempt a bipartisan bill introduced in Congress in January 2019 calling for the addition to the Entity List of any Chinese telecoms firm that violates US export controls or sanctions.

Restrictions on Transactions with Huawei  


As of May 21, both US and non-US companies will be broadly prohibited from exporting or transferring to these 69 Huawei entities any product, software, or technology that is of US origin, or that contains more than a “de minimis” level of US-origin content, without a prior license (authorization) from the US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in Commerce. 

Such products, software, and “technology” as defined in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are referred to in the regulations as “items subject to the EAR”. Items that have already been shipped to Huawei and are en route are exempted from the prohibition, so long as they did not previously require a BIS license.

For the moment, going forward it seems unlikely a company will be able to obtain a license from BIS to authorize a covered transaction. BIS might adopt a more permissive licensing policy in future, given the pressure that will likely build from the US private sector on the US government to license at least some types of transactions.

Practical Impact   


The listing will impact hundreds or even thousands of US companies that supply goods or services to Huawei as part of its supply chain, and will impact many of them materially. Before Huawei, the most consequential use of the Entity List was the listing in March 2016 of its Chinese competitor, ZTE. 

Companies exporting US products or technologies to China should take care to review their customers for any of the covered Huawei affiliates. Attempted and actual shipments to parties on the Entity List without a BIS license have accounted for a large number of BIS enforcement cases over the past few years. 

Executive Order and Import Restrictions

Yesterday, reportedly after several months of indecision, President Trump issued an Executive Order on “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain”. The Order does not mention China or Huawei but clearly was crafted in a manner to support restrictions on imports of Huawei products and services to the United States.

Background to the Order   


The Order defines the term “Foreign Adversaries” as any non-US person or government “engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to” US national security or the safety of US persons. The Order finds that Foreign Adversaries are “creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in” information and communications technology or services (ICTS) to commit malicious cyber-enabled actions, including industrial espionage, against the US and its people.

Scope of the Order   


The Order gives Commerce the authority to make a determination that certain types of transactions involving ICTS and non-US entities will be prohibited. Any transaction that is initiated or completed after the date of the Order, is subject to US jurisdiction and involves property in which a non-US person has an interest can be prohibited, if Commerce has first issued a determination that:
  –  any of the ICTS involved in the transaction was manufactured or supplied by a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Foreign Adversary, AND
  –  the transaction poses an undue risk of “sabotage to or subversion of” ICTS in the US, an “undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security” of US infrastructure or the US digital economy or “otherwise poses an unacceptable risk to” US national security or the safety of US persons.

Anticipated Application to Huawei

 
Commerce is expected to announce by next week the first steps to implement the Order. This initial implementation is expected to have the practical effect of a prohibition on certain purchases, imports into the United States, or use by US persons of equipment or services produced or supplied by Huawei.

We expect that Commerce will also implement, over the next few weeks, exceptions to these prohibitions or a process to seek a license or to negotiate a mitigation agreement that would allow otherwise-prohibited transactions to go forward.

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

COM_a112.
J.E. Smith, M.V. Dobson & K.G. Readling: “Sanctions Enforcement Tips from Former OFAC’ers”

(Source: Editor, 16 May 2019.)
 

Authors: John E. Smith, Esq., johnsmith@mofo.com; Michael V. Dobson, Esq., mdobson@mofo.com, and Kristofer G. Readling, Esq., kreadling@mofo.com.  All of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Washington, DC.
 
The experience by the authors, all former officials at the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), allows them to observe firsthand what actions contribute to successful outcomes, along with the mistakes companies too often make when appearing before OFAC. Here are a few of their best tips to help you avoid common missteps:
 
(1) If you’re going to disclose, disclose fully.
 
Many companies choose to disclose to OFAC situations in which they might have violated U.S. sanctions. Doing so provides three principal benefits to a company. First, a voluntary self-disclosure automatically entitles you to 50 percent off any resulting penalty, setting a ceiling on OFAC’s base penalty calculation at either one-half the transaction value or one-half the applicable statutory maximum, depending on whether a violation is determined to be egregious. Second, it allows a company to frame the narrative of the violations to OFAC in order to highlight the company’s compliance and remedial efforts. Finally, it incentivizes OFAC to mitigate any penalty under OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines. Great deal, right?
 
All of this can go out the window if a disclosure is “materially incomplete.” Furthermore, filing an incomplete or misleading disclosure might actually cause OFAC to increase any penalties for non-cooperation-the opposite of the desired outcome. If you believe time is of the essence and want to report to OFAC while continuing to investigate a potentially broader range of apparent violations (perhaps to avoid the loss of voluntary self-disclosure credit if another company beats you to a report), then consider submitting a preliminary notification with a specific timeline for completing the review, and a promise to provide periodic updates.
 
(2) Make sure to mention favorable laws and precedents.
 
Despite its mandate to implement and enforce U.S. sanctions globally, OFAC is a relatively small administrative agency with only a few hundred employees. Caseloads are heavy. Companies that disclose potential violations often mention relevant specific and general licenses, as well as relevant provisions from OFAC’s regulations, but forget to mention other areas of the law relevant to their case, such as agency law. “Agency” law here means the law of principal-agent relationships (i.e., employer-employee, parent-sub, etc.), not the administrative law applicable to government agencies.
 
Agency law is especially important for companies that bestow titles on their employees indicating seniority and managerial rank but not managerial responsibilities. OFAC enforcement staff are going to read titles like “vice president,” “director,” and “project manager” through the lens of OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines, which direct them to look at whether a company willfully or recklessly violated sanctions, and whether there was awareness on the part of the company of the problematic conduct. When a managerial employee willfully or recklessly violates sanctions, the employer is deemed to have been willful or reckless; similarly, if a managerial employee is aware of the conduct, the employer is deemed to be aware. When a contractor or nonmanagerial employee willfully or recklessly violates sanctions, or is aware of the problematic conduct, however, the employer is not necessarily deemed willful or reckless, or deemed even aware of the conduct, and the distinction may turn on agency law. However, very few companies provide job descriptions in their correspondence with OFAC without being asked first.
 
(3) Don’t ignore OFAC’s policy goals.
 
Sanctions are a major U.S. national security and foreign policy tool. Often, a single sanctions regime will reflect multiple policy priorities. For example, almost every sanctions program contains exemptions and general licenses designed to facilitate the free flow of ideas, humanitarian aid, and non-sanctioned people throughout the world. Don’t ignore these policy considerations when going before OFAC. OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines specifically direct the agency to review whether a violation harmed the relevant sanctions program’s objectives. Before communicating with OFAC about a potential violation, review the relevant program objectives and consider how the activity at issue fits into that policy framework. If there are credible arguments that the activity doesn’t undermine policy objectives, make them. Doing so could lead OFAC to decide that the case isn’t worth the resources required by an enforcement action.
 
(4) Don’t treat OFAC like the SEC or litigation.
 
Sanctions law is a sufficiently niche practice area that the outside/in-house counsel interacting with OFAC frequently specializes in some other area of law, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or general litigation. Bringing those experiences and related mindsets to OFAC can be a mistake when you don’t have a clear understanding of the inner workings of OFAC. By the time OFAC calls you to discuss settlement, the debate over whether a violation occurred is essentially over. Many litigators make the mistake of trying to debate elements of the offense and citing improperly to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not apply to OFAC proceedings. SEC practitioners often seek to “appeal” enforcement actions to OFAC’s director or political officials in the Treasury Department in the same way they would appeal an SEC action to the Commission. This can lead OFAC to view a party as relatively unsophisticated, and is unlikely to change the outcome of an enforcement case. If you believe the penalty OFAC intends to issue is unjust or unlawful, the person to discuss that with is the same enforcement or compliance officer who’s been handling your case all along; if you still believe the result is unfair, at that point feel free to request a meeting with the head of OFAC’s Enforcement Division or with OFAC’s Director, but do so with eyes wide open. Those OFAC officials will have already reviewed and approved the resolution of the case, presumably after considering and rejecting the arguments you are making. OFAC takes mitigation arguments provided by opposing counsel seriously, and usually addresses them in the administrative record. An example of this can be found in the public filings of Exxon Mobil Corporation et al. v. Mnuchin et al., where OFAC specifically addressed Exxon’s mitigation arguments in its penalty notice.
 
(5) Take responsibility for compliance gaps.
 
Companies often try to pin sanctions violations on rogue employees or agents. While sometimes true, such arguments often signal to OFAC that the company isn’t really serious about trying to comply with U.S. sanctions, but is instead trying to find a scapegoat. If the person at a company most responsible for a violation of the law is a senior manager, then the company is responsible and should take responsibility. It frustrates OFAC enforcement staff when senior managers are painted as low-level employees to be scapegoated, and when this discrepancy is discovered, it often prolongs OFAC investigations by requiring OFAC to issue additional subpoenas, driving up legal costs for firms under investigation.
 
A much better approach is to factually state who at the company was involved and what their job titles and responsibilities were, and let OFAC make the determination as to whether they’re senior or not. This shows that the company is doing its best to remediate its violations by coming clean. This is also true when the underlying cause of a violation was a compliance program gap rather than a willful employee. Rather than state that “it would have been impossible to comply,” factually describe the compliance program that was in place at the time, explain why that compliance program was reasonable given the firm’s risk profile, and discuss what you will do to prevent similar missteps in the future.
 
Following these tips won’t necessarily prevent your company from receiving a penalty, but they are likely to reduce your legal expenses, increase the level of mitigation that OFAC grants, and provide you, your company, and your counsel with long-term OFAC goodwill.

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

COM_a213.
M. Volkov: “Episode 89 – DOJ Issues New Guidance on Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs”
(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 12 May 2019. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
In a major development in ethics and compliance program expectations, the Justice Department has issued a new and important revised guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. The new Evaluation Guidance supersedes the prior document issued in February 2017, which contained a lengthy list of questions on key topic areas.
 

Join Michael Volkov as he discusses the new guidance and outlines the impact for all corporate compliance programs.
 

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

COM_a314.
M. Peterson and K. Konar: “Navigating Export Compliance and Anti-Discrimination: What DOJ’s Recent Settlement with Honda Aircraft Teaches Us”

(Source: VedderPrice, 15 May, 2019.)
 
* Authors: M. Peterson Esq., +1 202 312 3038, K. Konar Esq., +1 312 609 7588.  Both of VedderPrice.
 
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently reached a settlement with Honda Aircraft Company, LLC (Honda Aircraft) resolving a claim that Honda Aircraft violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provisions by unlawfully requiring applicants for certain job postings to be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. By restricting potential applicants only to those two categories, Honda Aircraft impermissibly restricted the pool of job candidates available for the job positions. These overly restrictive and discriminatory job postings resulted from Honda Aircraft’s almost certain unintentional misunderstanding of its obligations per U.S. export control regulations to prevent the unauthorized release of controlled technology to foreign persons.
 
The Honda Aircraft settlement is the latest in a series of recent DOJ settlements [FN/1] addressing situations where companies’ INA compliance has gone awry due to well-intended efforts to comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and/or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the two regulations central to U.S. export controls. What Honda Aircraft, and other companies, failed to understand is that compliance with U.S. export control laws need not, and should not, come at the expense of compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA. In other words, Honda Aircraft did not appreciate its obligations to comply both with the INA and U.S. export control regulations in its hiring process. HR departments in particular must be cognizant of both sets of laws in their hiring practices, and companies should have in place written policies and procedures that provide a clear path to compliance.
 
What Do U.S. Export Control Regulations Require?
 
Through the above-mentioned export control regulations, the United States regulates not only the actual export of certain goods, products or services from the United States to a “foreign person” [FN/2] but also the release of certain technology or “technical data” [FN/3] within the United States if the technical data is being released to a foreign person. Under the ITAR, technical data is released through: “(1) [v]isual or other inspection by foreign persons of a defense article that reveals technical data to a foreign person; or (2) [o]ral or written exchanges with foreign persons of technical data in the United States or abroad.” [FN/4] It is this type of export-releasing technical data within the United States to a foreign person-that companies are often attempting to prevent by placing overly-restrictive limitations on job postings. This type of export is referred to as a “deemed export” because the release of technical data to a foreign person is deemed to be an export to the foreign person’s country or countries of nationality. [FN/5]
 
data to a foreign person to be an export to all countries where that person holds or has ever held citizenship or permanent residency.
Deemed exports can happen in a variety of ways: forwarding an e mail that attaches export-controlled technical data to a work colleague who is a foreign person, not appropriately limiting access to shared company drives that contain export- controlled technical data, leaving a technical drawing out on the floor in a manufacturing facility, or orally discussing technical data with a foreign person.
 
In order to comply with U.S. export laws, and to avoid an unauthorized deemed export to a “foreign person,” a company must ensure that export-controlled technical data is only disclosed to “U.S. persons,” or the company must obtain a license prior to releasing export-controlled technical data to a foreign person.
 
Thus, it is critical to understand who is considered a “U.S. person” for export control purposes. A “U.S. person” is either a lawful permanent resident (i.e., a green card holder) or a protected individual, as that term is defined by the INA. A “foreign person” is just the opposite-anyone who is not a lawful permanent resident or a protected individual.
 
What Does the INA Require?
 
The INA prohibits discrimination in hiring based on an individual’s national origin or, in the case of a “protected individual,” citizenship status. [FN/6] Protected individuals, as defined by the INA, encompass U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawfully admitted permanent residents, refugees and asylees, and certain individuals lawfully admitted for temporary residence under specific amnesty provisions. [FN/7] Thus, as relevant to the intersection of the hiring protections encapsulated in the INA and U.S. export control compliance, companies’ hiring practices cannot discriminate against these categories of protected applicants. The INA also prohibits unfair documentary practices, meaning that employers may not request specific documents during the Form I-9 employment authorization verification process. [FN/8]
 
How Do Companies Comply with Both Export Control Laws and the INA?
 
Honda Aircraft (and other employers) got themselves into hot water by applying an overly restrictive meaning to “U.S. person” in order to comply with export control laws. Honda Aircraft published job announcements specifying that only applicants who were lawful permanent residents and/or U.S. citizens would be considered for employment of the advertised positions. This restriction was likely the well-intended attempt by Honda Aircraft to properly limit access to export controlled material per the export control regulations. The fallacy in this approach, however, was that Honda Aircraft did not need to impose such restrictive language in its job postings in order to comply with export control laws. Honda Aircraft should, and could, have created job postings that were available to any U.S. person, specifically including all protected individuals.
 
Thus, the key takeaway from the Honda Aircraft settlement, and similar settlements before it, is that companies must take care to avoid crafting overly-restrictive job postings in the name of export compliance.
 
Best practice instead dictates that companies separate their hiring decisions from their export compliance practices. First, companies must ensure that all job postings, even job postings for export-controlled positions, are not overly restrictive or anti-discriminatory, and, in particular do not exclude protected individuals. Second, companies should never refuse to hire an applicant based on the applicant’s citizenship or nationality, so long as the applicant can establish his or her authorization to work in the United States through the Form I-9 verification process. Third, once a new employee is hired, and if the position for which he or she has been hired is export-controlled, a company may undertake an export screening process to confirm whether the employee meets the definition of a U.S. person for export control purposes.9 Fourth, if that employee does not meet the U.S. person definition, the company should apply for the necessary export license(s).
 
Thus, with the proper advanced planning and written procedures, the INA and export control laws can work in harmony.  
 
——  

[FN/1] In June 2018, DOJ
settled an anti-discrimination claim against Setpoint Systems, Inc. for $17,475, resulting from the company’s unlawful policy of hiring only U.S. citizens for certain professional positions based on the company’s erroneous understanding of the ITAR. In August 2018, DOJ
settled an anti-discrimination claim against Clifford Chance US LLP for $132,000, resulting from the law firm’s discriminatory hiring practice in refusing to consider work-authorized non-U.S. citizens and dual citizens for a document review project based on the firm’s misunderstanding of the ITAR.

[FN/2] The ITAR uses the term “foreign person” to refer to any natural person who is not a lawful permanent resident of the United States or a protected individual. The EAR uses the term “foreign national” to refer to the same category of individuals.
[FN/3] The ITAR defines “technical data” to mean information which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles; certain classified information; information covered by an invention secrecy order; or certain software directly related to defense articles. 22 C.F.R. § 120.10.
[FN/4] See 22 C.F.R. § 120.50.
[FN/5] The ITAR and the EAR differ in one important respect in their interpretation of a deemed export. Pursuant to the EAR, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) treats a foreign national’s most recent country of citizenship or permanent residency as the country of export. The Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) takes a more expansive view under the ITAR, considering the release of technical
[FN/6] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also prohibits employment discrimination based on race or national origin, among other things. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
[FN/7] 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(3).
[FN/8] 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(6).
 

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_1
15
.
FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 27 Nov in Bruchem, the Netherlands 

(Source:
Full Circle Compliance

events@fullcirclecompliance.eu
.)

 
This intermediate-level training course is specifically designed for compliance professionals and those in a similar role who aim to stay up-to-date with the latest Export Administration Regulations (EAR) requirements that apply to non-U.S. transactions.
 
The course will cover multiple topics relevant for organizations outside the U.S. that are subject to the Export Administration Regulations, including but not limited to: the U.S. regulatory framework, key EAR concepts and definitions, tips regarding classification and licensing, essential steps to ensure an EAR compliant shipment, how to handle a (potential) non-compliance issue, recent enforcement trends, and the latest regulatory amendments, including the latest U.S. Export Control Reform developments. Participants will receive a certification upon completion of the training.
 
Details
* What: U.S. Export Controls: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective
* When: Wednesday, 27 Nov 2019
– Welcome and Registration: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
– Training hours: 9.30 am – 4.30 pm
* Where: Full Circle Compliance, Landgoed Groenhoven, Dorpsstraat 6, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Information & Registration: via
event page
or contact FCC at
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu
or + 31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046
* This course can be followed in combination with “U.S. Export Controls: The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (26 Nov 2019), and/or “The ABC of Foreign Military Sales” (29 Nov 2019). Please, see the
event page
for our combo deals.

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

TE_List16. 
List of Approaching Events: 149 Events Posted This Week, Including 24 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
events@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

* Webinar Series: “Complying with US Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS

* 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

 

* May 19: Traverse City, MI; “Export Compliance Overview Traning“; Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC   

*
May 20: Schiphol, the Netherlands; “Voorlichting Export licenties, sanctielijsten en Dual use goederen“; ACN
*
May 20-21; Trier, Germany; “Sanctions in EU External Relations“; ERA Academy of European Law   
 


* May 20-24: London, UK; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

* May 21: Chicago, IL; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

*
 
May 21: London, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

 
* May 22: Burlington, MA; “Getting Your Government Contract Business from Spring to Summer“; NDIA New England

#
* May 23: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting
“; Chamber International

* May 30: London, UK; “London Export Control Symposium“; UK/DIT
* May 30: London, UK; “Post Brexit Documentation and Compliance“; 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: Sydney, Australia; “Defence Export Controls Outreach“; DEC


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 12-13: Shanghai, China; “China Forum for Legal and Compliance Officers“; American Conference Institute

*
 
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 13: Huntsville, AL; “STOPfakes.gov Intellectual Property Protection Seminar“; Alabama District Export Council, U.S. Department of Commerce & North Alabama International Trade Association (NAITA); naita@naita.org, 256-532-3505

#
* Jun 13: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting & Incoterms
“; Chamber International

*
 
Jun 14: Cleveland, OH; “
Incoterms® 2010 Rules
“; Global Training 
* Jun 17-20: San Diego, CA; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls“; ECTI

* Jun 17-21: Los Angeles, CA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

#
* Jun 19-20: Washington DC;
 Export Controls & Technology Transfer Conference“; Squire Patton Boggs
#
* Jun 20: Kansas City, MO; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Jun 25: London, UK; “Introduction to Export Licensing Controls“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

#
* Jun 25: Melbourne, Australia; “ITAR/EAR/AU Export Control Awareness“; Goal Group

* Jun 26-28: Washington D.C.; “American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) Conference“; AAEI

*
 
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

* Jul 9-11: Washington; “
BIS 2019 Annual Conference on Export Controls and Policy
“; Commerce/BIS

*
 
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 16: Atlanta, GA; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Jul 16-19; Chicago, IL; “Export Boot Camp“; Amber Road

#
* Jul 23: Laredo, TX; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

*
Jul 23-25; Washington D.C.; “Anti-Corruption Compliance for High Risk Markets“; American Conference Institute

*
Jul 24-25: St. Louis, MO; “
 Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
# * Jul 25: Dallas, TX; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson 

* Jul 29-30: New Orleans, LA; “Global Trade Educational Conference“; NCBFAA Educational Institute  

# * Jul 31: Leeds, UK; “Export Documentation” Chamber International 
 
* Jul 31-Aug 1: Seattle WA; “11th Annual Pacific Northwest Export Control Conference: Export Risks and Threats in the Cyber Domain“; DoC/U.S. Commercial Service, DHS/Homeland Security Investigations, Seattle University, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

* Aug 1-2: Torrance, CA; “Customs Compliance for Import Personnel” Foreign Trade Association

* 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: Los Angeles, CA; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Aug 22: Milpitas, CA:

Encryption Controls
“;
Commerce/BIS

* Sep 2, 9, 16: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “Awareness training Export Control, Dual-use en Sancties“; FENEX

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

#
* Sep 10: Minneapolis, MN; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Sep 10-11: Portland, OR; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS

#
* Sep 16-18: Winchester, UK; “
From EAR to ITARnity: Ever-challenging US Export Controls Compliance
” Squire Patton Boggs

* 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 18: Leeds, UK; “Export Documentation & Import Procedures“; Chamber International

 
* Sep 18-19: Los Angeles, CA; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS

*
 Sep 20: Las Vegas, NV; “
EAR and OFAC Fundamentals: Export Control Of Dual-Use Equipment
“; Barnes & Thornburg LLP

#
* Sep 24: Boston, MA; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

 
* Sep 24-25: Minneapolis, MN; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS
 
* Sep 24-25: San Francisco, CA; “West Coast Conference on FCPA Enforcement and Compliance“; American Conference Institute

* Sep 24-26: Los Angeles, CA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road

*
 
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 25-26: Amsterdam, the Netherlands; “Defence Exports Annual Conference“; SMI

* Sep 26: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; “Global Trade Management: Turning trade challenges into opportunities” Amber Road

*
 
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 3: Chicago, IL; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Oct 3; Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “Trade Compliance Congres 2019“; Sdu

*
 
Oct 7: Munich, Germany; “
European and German Export Controls
“; AWA

# * Oct 8: New York, NY; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson* Oct 14-17; Columbus, OH; “
University Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI

*
Oct 15: Singapore; “
5th Asia Pacific Summit on Economic Sanctions Compliance and Enforcement
“; 
American Conference Institute

*
Oct 17: Sheffield, UK; “
Export Documentation – How and Why?” 
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

* Oct 21-25: Chicago, IL; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

#
* Oct 22: Indianapolis, IN; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson


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

#
* Oct 29: Montreal, Canada; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Oct 29-30; Tysons Corner, VA; “Conducting an internal Import/Export Audit“; Amber Road
# * Oct 31: Toronto, Canada; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson 

* Nov 11-14; Washington, DC; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI

* Nov 19-21: Tysons Corner, VA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road

*
 
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 2-6: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

*
 
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 10-11: New York, NY; ” 
10th Annual New York Forum on Economic Sanctions“; American Conference Institute

*
 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

* Feb 5-6; Munich, Germany; “Export Compliance in Europe Conference“; NielsonSmith

* Feb 24-26; Las Vegas, NV; “Winter Back to Basics Conference“; Society for International Affairs

#
* Mar 3-5; Vienna, Austria; “Lehrgang Exportkontrolle & Export Compliance“; OPWZ

 
Webinars 



* May 22: Webinar: “ITAR“; Global Training Center
* May 23: Webinar: “EAR“; Global Training Center

# * May 28: Webinar: “Export Control Reform for the Firearms Industry“; Orchid Advisors  
* May 28: Webinar: “ITAR-to-EAR” Orchid Advisors

* Jun 6: Webinar: “China Trade Update“; Massachusetts Export Center; 617-973-6610

#
* Jun 10: Webinar: “
Export Controls: Key Issues and Compliance Best Practices
“; Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics
#
* Jun 12: Webinar: “OFAC Sanctions Update: What the Compliance Practitioner Needs to Know“; Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics

*
Jun 12: Webinar: “EU Export Controls“; BDP
 


* Jun 13: Webinar: “Supply Chain & Global Trade Analytics“; Amber Road

* Jul 10: Webinar: “
EAR
“; Global Training Center
* Jul 11: Webinar: “
ITAR
“; Global Training Center

* Jul 19: Webinar: “Managing Export Operations and Compliance“; Massachusetts Export Center; 617-973-6610

* Sep 25: Webinar: “
EAR
“; Global Training Center
* Sep 26: Webinar: “
ITAR
“; Global Training Center

* Oct 29: Webinar: “Key updates on export controls and sanctions“; Baker McKenzie
* Dec 17: Webinar: “Managing Emerging Compliance Risks“; Baker McKenzie

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a117
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

 

*
Anna Jameson (Anna Brownell Jameson (17 May 1794 – 17 March 1860) was the first Anglo-Irish art historian. She  contributor to nineteenth-century thought on a range of subjects including early feminism, art history (particularly sacred art), travel, Shakespeare, poets, and German culture.
– “All my experience of the world teaches me that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the safe and just side of a question is the generous and merciful side.”
 
This week’s proverbs:
* Teachers open the door. You enter by yourself. | Chinese proverb
* If you go to a donkey’s house, don’t talk about ears. | Jamaican Proverb
* Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | Slovenian Proverb

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

EN_a218. 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: 5 Apr 2019:
 
5 Apr 2019: 84 FR 13499-13513: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation
 

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: 14 May 2019:
84 FR 21233-21238: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of an Entry on the Entity List, and Removal of an Entity From the Entity List

 
*
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: 14 Mar 2019:
 
84 FR 9239-9240
: 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: 19 Apr 2019: 84 FR 16398-16402: International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Transfers Made by or for a Department or Agency of the U.S. Government 
  – 
The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 19 Apr 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: 29 Apr 2019:
84 FR 17950-17958: Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections Sanctions Regulations [amendment of 31 CFR Part 579 to implement EO 13848]

  
*
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:
13 May 2019: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1907

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

EN_a319
. 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, Vincent J.A. Goossen and Alex Witt; and Events & Jobs Editor, Sven Goor. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 7,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOE/NRC, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, FAR/DFARS, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

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

* CAVEAT: The contents 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