19-0620 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0620 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 20 June 2019

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

inquiries and rates

  1. President Continues National Emergency Concerning Western Balkans 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. Treasury/OFAC Amends Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations (RPPR)
  5. EU Extends Sanctions Against Russia Until 2020
  1. Euronews: “BAE Systems Will Fulfil UK-Saudi Contracts After Arms Export Ruling”
  2. BBC: “UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia Unlawful, Court Rules”
  3. Modern Diplomacy: “Globalisation: How the EU’s Trade Policy Helps To Promote Human Rights”
  4. The Ripon Advance: “McCaul Bill Aids NATO Allies in Buying American Weapons”
  5. ST&R Trade Report: “Export and Sanctions Penalties Increased”
  6. The Washington Times: “Russian Video Game Developer Ordered Deported from U.S. Over Acquiring Fighter Jet Manuals From eBay”
  1. D. Romestat: “Arms Export, European Questions and Trends”
  2. J. Menton & C. Anderson: “DBEI Seeks Submissions on Update to Irish Export Control Law”
  3. M. Volkov: “Watching the River Flow: The Evolution and Future of Compliance (Part I of III)”
  1. FCC Presents “Designing an ICP for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 1 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  2. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Bootcamp: Achieving Compliance” on 8-9 Jul in Seattle, WA
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (5 Apr 2019), DOC/EAR (5 June 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 2018), DOS/ITAR (19 Apr 2018), DOT/FACR/OFAC (5 June 2018), HTSUS (13 Jun 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 


EXIM_a11. President Continues National Emergency Concerning Western Balkans

(Source: Federal Register, 20 June 2019.)
84 FR 28715: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Western Balkans
On June 26, 2001, by Executive Order 13219, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions of persons engaged in, or assisting, sponsoring, or supporting (i) extremist violence in the former Republic of Macedonia (what is now the Republic of North Macedonia) and elsewhere in the Western Balkans region, or (ii) acts obstructing implementation of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, in Kosovo. The President subsequently amended that order in Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003, to take additional steps with respect to acts obstructing implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement of 2001 relating to Macedonia.
The actions of persons threatening the peace and international stabilization efforts in the Western Balkans, including acts of extremist violence and obstructionist activity, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on June 26, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date and thereafter to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond June 26, 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 the Western Balkans declared in Executive Order 13219.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
(Presidential Sig.)

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


OGS_a12. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register, 11 June 2019.)


* Justice; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application to Transport Interstate or Temporarily Export Certain National Firearms Act Firearms [Pub. Date: 21 June 2019.]
* Treasury/OFAC; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Pub. Date: 21 June 2019.] 
* Treasury/OFAC; RULES; Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations [Pub. Date: 21 June 2019.]

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

Commerce/BIS (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

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

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

Treasury/OFAC Amends Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations (RPPR)
(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 20 June 2019.)
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR part 501 (RPPR). The RPPR sets forth standard reporting and recordkeeping requirements and license application and other procedures relevant to the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC.
     This rule provides updated instructions and incorporates new requirements for parties filing reports on blocked property, unblocked property, or rejected transactions; revises the licensing procedures section to include information regarding OFAC’s electronic license application procedures, and to provide additional instructions regarding applications for the release of blocked funds; and clarifies the rules governing the availability of information under federal law, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), for information that is submitted to OFAC in connection with blocking or unblocking reports, reports on rejected transactions, or license applications.  
     This regulatory amendment is currently available for public inspection with the Federal Register and will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register on Friday, June 21, 2019.

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

EU Extends Sanctions Against Russia Until 2020
(Source: European Council, 20 June 2019.)
On 20 June 2019, the Council prolonged the restrictive measures introduced in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia until 23 June 2020.
The measures apply to EU persons and EU based companies. They are limited to the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol. The sanctions include prohibitions on:
– Imports of products
originating in Crimea or Sevastopol into the EU;
Investment in Crimea or Sevastopol, meaning that no Europeans or EU-based companies can buy real estate or entities in Crimea, finance Crimean companies or supply related services;
Tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol, in particular, European cruise ships cannot call at ports in the Crimean peninsula, except in case of emergency;
Exports of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies or for use in Crimea in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors and related to the prospecting, exploration, and production of oil, gas, and mineral resources. Technical assistance, brokering, construction or engineering services related to infrastructure in these sectors must not be provided either.
As stated in the declaration by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on behalf of the EU on 17 March 2019, five years on from the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia, the EU remains steadfast in its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The EU does not recognise and continues to condemn this violation of international law.
Since March 2014, the EU has progressively imposed restrictive measures against Russia in response to this deliberate destabilisation of Ukraine, including the sanctions renewed today. Other EU measures in place in response to the crisis in Ukraine include:  
– Economic sanctions
targeting specific sectors of the Russian economy, currently in place until 31 July 2019;
Individual restrictive measures currently targeting 170 individuals and 44 entities, subject to an asset freeze and a travel ban because their actions undermined Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.

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


Euronews: “BAE Systems Will Fulfil UK-Saudi Contracts After Arms Export Ruling”

(Source: Euronews, 20 June 2019.)
Leading British defence firm BAE Systems said on Thursday it would continue to support the government in its agreements it has made with Saudi Arabia following a court ruling that Britain had granted arms export licences unlawfully.
“We continue to support the UK Government in providing equipment, support and training under government to government agreements between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia,” BAE Systems said in a statement after the ruling, which does not halt exports but means Britain will pause issuing new licences.
“We will assess the result of the UK Government’s reconsideration of its decision-making on the basis set out by the court, once it has been made,” it said, adding it complied with all relevant export control laws.

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

BBC: “UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia Unlawful, Court Rules”  
(Source: BBC, 20 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]

Campaigners have won a legal challenge over the UK government’s decision to allow arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is engaged in the war in Yemen.
Campaign Against Arms Trade argued the decision to continue to license military equipment for export to the Gulf state was unlawful.
It said there was a clear risk the arms might be used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Judges said licences should be reviewed but would not be immediately suspended.
International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said the government would not grant any new licences for export to Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners while it considers the implications of the judgment. …

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

Modern Diplomacy: “Globalisation: How the EU’s Trade Policy Helps To Promote Human Rights”

(Source: Modern Diplomacy, 20 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
Trade restrictions
The EU can also impose unilateral trade restrictions or set due diligence obligations for importers to ensure that money from trade with the EU is not being used to fund conflict and human rights violations in these countries.
The EU also has strict rules to prevent the use of European goods and technologies for unethical intentions elsewhere, for example medical substances that could be used in executions..
Imports of items whose production is related to human rights violations are also restricted, including conflict minerals and objects that can be used for torture.
Import ban on conflict minerals
The EU has taken steps to ban the import of conflict related minerals.
In 2002, after recognising the impact international trade in diamonds has on human rights, the EU adopted rules that ban all imports of rough diamonds without a certificate of origin. Similarly, minerals, used in the production of, for example high-tech devices, often stem from countries afflicted by conflict. The revenue gained from minerals exported to the EU often sustained armed revolts.
To prevent the international trade in minerals from funding conflict and human rights violations, MEPs adopted in 2017 rules obliging EU importers of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold to carry out due diligence checks on their suppliers. The regulation will be fully in force from 2021.
Export ban on torture goods
EU rules ban any trade in goods and services that may contribute to torture or execution.
Since 2004, an export control system is in place, which checks and prohibits goods that may be used to treat people badly. Authorisation is necessary for items that have legitimate purposes but that can also be used for human rights violations, such as medicinal substances.
The rules also include a ban on the marketing and transit of equipment used for cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that have no other practical use than execution or torture, such as electric chairs or automatic drug injection systems.
Export control for trade in items that can be used to violate human rights
The EU has rules to ensure that products and technologies originally produced for civilian use in Europe cannot be used to violate human rights. Dual-use items are goods, software, or technology that, besides their original purpose, can be abused. Examples of other uses include developing weaponry, committing terrorist attacks, spying on people, or infiltrating computer systems, hacking computers, or intercepting mobile phones.
An update of the rules is being discussed featuring stricter export controls, brokering, transit and transfer of dual-use items and taking into account technological developments. Export controls are facilitated by a common EU list of dual-use items. …

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

The Ripon Advance: “McCaul Bill Aids NATO Allies in Buying American Weapons”

(Source: The Ripon Advance, 19 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) is cosponsoring bipartisan legislation that would provide financial lending mechanisms to assist North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in modernizing their military forces to help them replace obsolete Soviet equipment.
Rep. McCaul on June 11 introduced the NATO Defense Financing Act, H.R. 3194, with lead sponsor U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), who are ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The bill is scheduled for markup by the full committee on June 20, according to a notice from the committee. …

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

ST&R Trade Report: “Export and Sanctions Penalties Increased”

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 19 June 2019.)
The Office of Foreign Assets Control has issued a final rule adjusting its maximum civil monetary penalties for inflation, as follows, effective June 14.
– $1,503,470 (up from $1,466,485) for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations
– the greater of $302,584 (up from $295,141) or twice the amount of the underlying transaction for violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iranian Assets Control Regulations, the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Trade Control Regulations, the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations, the Syrian Sanctions Regulations, the Cote d’Ivoire Sanctions Regulations, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, the Darfur Sanctions Regulations, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions Regulations, the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, the Lebanon Sanctions Regulations, the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations, the Iraq Stabilization and Insurgency Sanctions Regulations, the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations, the Magnitsky Act Sanctions Regulations, the Western Balkans Stabilization Regulations, the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, the Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, and the North Korea Sanctions Regulations
– $89,170 (up from $86,976) per violation on any person who violates any license, order, or regulation issued under the Trading with the Enemy Act
– the greater of $79,874 (up from $77,909) or twice the amount of which a financial institution was required to retain possession or control for violations of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations
– $13,669 (up from $13,333) for violations of the Clean Diamond Trade Act and the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations

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

The Washington Times: “Russian Video Game Developer Ordered Deported from U.S. Over Acquiring Fighter Jet Manuals From eBay”
The Washington Times, 19 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
Russian video game developer Oleg Tishchenko was ordered deported Wednesday for violating U.S. export law by obtaining fighter jet manuals from eBay eight years earlier.
Tishchenko, 42, pleaded guilty to related charges during a hearing held in Utah federal court and received a sentence of time served by U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball. …
In a court filing entered ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Tishchenko admitted violating U.S. arms control and smuggling laws by the acquiring fighter jet manuals in 2011 with the help of an intermediary he found on an online forum frequented by fans of the for Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) game series. …

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


D. Romestat: “Arms Export, European Questions and Trends”

(Source: LinkedIn, 20 June 2019. Available in English and French)
* Author: Damien Romestat, Esq., DR Conseil, dromestant.consultant@gmail.com, + 33 769 761 512.
As part of the controversy regarding arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a UK Court ruled today a decision which should seriously impact the whole export control process in Europe. Regarding this specific case, the UK Government already stated it will appeal the decision.
In that case, the British judge blamed the administration in charge of issuing the export licence not to have apply a required level of diligence regarding the international humanitarian law. We are on the opinion that in ruling in that way the judge is extending the requirements in terms of motivation to a level which should be further observed. Indeed, on what kind of evidence, to what extend will have to proceed the administration in the future to evidence their due diligence process? Should they use public information? Intelligence? It will be interesting to read that decision in parallel with a recent case ruled by the EUCJ where the European judge explained that although the governmental decision was based on intelligence material, it was not enough motivated. It that case, it is understandable that the State can’t disclose its sources. So, then we see here a dangerous breach to national security issues.
The decision is ruling in a worthy aim, but the identified trend within the judiciary may occur much more difficult talks to come in finding a right balance between national security interests, including economic interests, and humanitarian legal obligations. France and Germany are now looking for a consensus on future export rules for the common industrial cooperation, aiming at avoiding one participating to block an export transaction concluded by the other party. Although the French Ministry of Defense declared the two parties were closed to reach a final agreement, these two cases will feed the debate in Europe. Debate which will most likely be very intense based on the weight of the 10% of the Green party into the European Parliament. They will certainly try to increase the legal obligation regarding the humanitarian obligation European States have to apply in their export control mechanism. Without further explanations from the judiciary, applying a discriminatory method by kind/type of material for example, it will be difficult for an exporting State to certify the end-use of the exported equipment. If they will be confirmed, these trends may hamper future European export transaction and redirect customers to non-European companies.

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

J. Menton & C. Anderson: “DBEI Seeks Submissions on Update to Irish Export Control Law”
Arthur Cox, 20 June 2019.)
* Authors: John Menton, Esq., john.menton@arthurcox.com, +353 1 920 1205; and Ciara Anderson, Esq., ciara.anderson@arthurcox.com, +353 1 920 1347, both of Arthur Cox.
­The Department of Business Enterprise and Innovation 
(“DBEI”) is calling for submissions in relation to an update 
to the primary export control law in Ireland.
The Control of Exports Act 2008 (the “Act”) contains export control offences, criminal penalties and sets out the powers of authorised officers. Since 2008, the Act has been subject to minimal amendments. The proposed update to the Act is to ensure that Ireland continues to meet its international obligations and to ensure the implementation of export controls in Ireland is in line with international best practice. It is intended that the updated Act will strengthen DBEI’s enforcement capabilities and this will include revising the offences and penalties in respect of breaches of export controls. According to DBEI, the updates to the Act will not result in an increased compliance burden on exporters. Stakeholders are invited to contribute to the review of the Act by making submissions in relation to:
» the offences specified in the Act;
» the penalties set out in the Act;
» the role and powers of authorized officers; and
» other areas where greater legal clarity is required in the Act.
Views are also sought on any developments since 2008 that should be taken into consideration including:
» new business practices or models or changes in global trade patterns;
» new and emerging products and technologies;
» geopolitical developments; and
» views on any other pertinent issues.
Submissions may be sent by email to exportcontrol@dbei.gov.ie.
The deadline for submissions is 5pm on Friday, 28 June 2019. Any party wishing to make a submission should be aware that all
submissions will be made public and published on the DBEI’s website.
While the DBEI may take this opportunity to revise penalties upwards, the consultation is nonetheless a welcome opportunity for exporters and other relevant stakeholders to provide insight on practical export compliance in Ireland, for example in relation to risks of non-compliance under Irish law for global entities that comply with a broadly similar but, in certain cases, distinct U.S. export control regime. 

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

M. Volkov: “Watching the River Flow: The Evolution and Future of Compliance (Part I of III)”
(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
People disagreeing on all just about everything, yeah
Makes you stop and all wonder why
Why only yesterday I saw somebody on the street
Who just couldn’t help but cry
Oh, this ol’ river keeps on rollin’, though
No matter what gets in the way and which way the wind does blow
And as long as it does I’ll just sit here
And watch the river flow
– Bob Dylan, Watch the River Flow
I have to admit it – I still love to listen to Bob Dylan. With age, his lyrics resonate more and more. HERE is a nice version of Watch the River Flow in case you want to listen while reading this posting. Dylan’s words are particularly apt as we watch the latest developments in compliance guidance.
DOJ and OFAC issued new and important guidance. As I sit here, watching the river flow, my perspective on the impact and importance of this guidance to the compliance professional compliance programs flows like the river. Like much of life, there is good and bad.
Let’s take a step back. In looking over corporate governance for the last thirty years, there is no question that ethics and compliance is one of the most significant – if not the most significant – change. Further, in looking to the future, ethics and compliance has the real potential to reduce corporate malfeasance. And that is a big point.
Over the last thirty years, our economy has suffered from serious corporate scandals, including the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s, the Internet meltdown in the 1990s, coupled with the financial reporting scandals of the early 2000s and enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, and finally the financial meltdown in 2008. Ethics and compliance are at the point where it can make significant contributions to reducing corporate misconduct.
White collar criminal enforcement has expanded as well. Over the last thirty years, we have seen what was typically a civil enforcement matter transformed into criminal prosecutions. At the same time, we have witnessed a major change in the role and responsibilities of federal prosecutors who have outsourced criminal investigations to defense counsel investigations and embraced deferred prosecutions and regulatory-type settlements aimed at improving corporate compliance and governance controls.
From the government’s perspective, the corporate compliance program was formally recognized when the United States Sentencing Commission adopted its Organizational Guidelines included a potential reduction in a company’s base offense level for an effective corporate compliance program. The factors listed under Section 8C2.5 provided an important framework that helped companies to design and implement compliance programs, notwithstanding the fact that few companies (in the universe) actually fell under the scrutiny of the guidelines (i.e. because they were not prosecuted for criminal offenses). Even more odd is the fact that few companies among the sentenced population ever earned the credit for having an effective compliance program.
Despite the lack of any direct application, the compliance profession and industry took to the guideline factors. Why? Because the guidelines provided the first real meaningful guidance on compliance programs. It made little sense for companies to invest in compliance programs, given the infancy of the industry, until government prosecutors acknowledged consideration of such programs in any criminal resolution. Notwithstanding their age, the sentencing guidelines provide a useful reference, and I would urge everyone to revisit the factors again and they will seem remarkably familiar. (Here)
Compliance guidance has a rich history. In the healthcare industry, the 1990s was a robust period for development of the compliance profession. HHS pushed for accountability of corporate boards and senior managers, and the separation of the compliance function from the legal department. Healthcare compliance guidance during the 1990s reflected the influence of the US Sentencing Guidelines with the establishment of seven mandated elements.
At the same time, DOJ continued to advance corporate compliance expectations and requirements with the release of formulaic Deputy Attorney General memoranda (e.g. Holder) on corporate charging policies, eventually resulting in the Filip Memo, and the un-named (Rosenstein) FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy in 2017.
DOJ’s 2012 FCPA Guidance (with the SEC) was a watershed document – it was the first time that prosecutors explained DOJ’s prosecution strategy, corporate compliance expectations, and provided various hypothetical “safe harbors” for corporate actors who could apply the guidance to engage in conduct that might otherwise be questionable. To this day, the FCPA Guidance stands as the most important corporate compliance guidance for corporations.
Against this backdrop, DOJ and now OFAC have entered the arena again to detail how DOJ evaluates corporate compliance programs and how OFAC evaluates sanctions compliance programs for purposes of the enforcement of sanctions laws and regulations. The question then becomes what is the value of DOJ and OFAC guidance and how should companies approach review of their programs in light of this new information?
Let’s clear the field (as they say on Shark Tank) on this issue.
First, companies would be mistaken if they took the guidance and implemented their programs only in strict accordance to the guidelines.
Second, companies should use the guidelines to inform and learn from as they manage their own corporate compliance programs.
Third, DOJ and OFAC guidance provide important safe harbors for corporations – in other words, DOJ and OFAC guidance provides just what it says – “guidance.” Compliance practitioners can use this guidance to cull out safe harbors and apply them in their day-to-day work.
Fourth, corporate compliance officers have to think beyond DOJ and OFAC guidance and design their programs in reference to the state of the compliance industry, which is fast-moving and robust with innovation and technological capabilities. In other words, think beyond the guidance, think big, and set goals that reflect an industry that has eclipsed the requirements of the DOJ and OFAC guidance.
Compliance programs, like the profession, continue to evolve. Indeed, it is clear that compliance programs with the advent of new thinking, innovative approaches, additional resources and technology are fast eclipsing the basic elements of compliance defined in the guidance.

[Part II will be included in tomorrow’s Daily Bugle]

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


TE_a116. FCC Presents “Designing an ICP for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 1 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands

This training course is designed for compliance officers, managers, and other professionals who aim to enhance their organization’s compliance efforts. The course will cover multiple topics and tackle various key questions, including but not limited to:
– Setting the Scene: ensuring compliance in the export control and sanctions arena
– What is expected from your organization? A closer look at the official frameworks and guidelines from U.S. and European government agencies
– Key elements of an ICP
– Best practice tips for enhancing your current compliance efforts  
– Internal controls samples (policies, procedures, instructions)
– Strategic benefits of having an ICP.
* What: Designing an Internal Compliance Program (ICP) for Export Controls & Sanctions
* Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 2019
* Location: Full Circle Compliance, Landgoed Groenhoven, Dorpsstraat 6, Bruchem, The Netherlands
* Times:
  – Registration and welcome: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
  – Training course hours: 9.30 am – 4.30 pm
* Level: Intermediate
* Target Audience:  the course provides valuable insights for both compliance professionals, employees and (senior / middle) management working in any industry subject to U.S. and/or EU (member state) export control laws and sanctions regulations.
* Instructors: Drs. Ghislaine C.Y. Gillessen RA and Marco M. Crombach MSc.

* Information & Registration: click here or contact us at events@fullcirclecompliance.eu or 31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046. 

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

TE_a217. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Bootcamp: Achieving Compliance” on 8-9 Jul in Seattle, WA

(Source: ECS)
* What: ITAR/EAR Bootcamp: Achieving Compliance; Seattle, WA
* When: July 8-9, 2019
* Where: 
Sheraton Grande
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel: Suzanne Palmer, Mal Zerden
* Register 
or by calling 866-238-4018 or email

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


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

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

: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Industry & Security.
  – Last Amendment: 5 June 2019: 
84 FR 25986-25989
: Restricting the Temporary Sojourn of Aircraft and Vessels to Cuba

* 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: 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 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: 5 June 2019: 84 FR 25992 – June 2019 Amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations [amendment of 31 CFR Part 515] 


, 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 June 2019: 
Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1911 

  – 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; and Assistant Editors, Alexander Witt and 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 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