;

19-1114 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-1114 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 14 November
2019

[No items of interest today.]
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. Defense News: “US Air Force’s New International Affairs Chief Lays Out Her Goals”
  2. Expeditors News: “EU Publishes Revised Combined Common Customs Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature”
  3. Spokesman-Review: “Seattle Judge Keeps Ban on Internet Sales of 3D-Printed Gun Plans”
  1. Meyer Brown: “UK Government Remains Committed to Adopting New National Security Review Legislation”
  2. Impex: “Implementing Documentation Compliance as an Important Need of International Trade”
  3. M. Bell: “Managing Export Controls and Sanctions: It’s About Who You Know and What You Know”
  4. Spectator: “The Crisis in Arms Control: What Crisis?”
  5. O. Gonzalez: “The October 2019 Customs Broker Exam Was A Debacle For CBP”
  1. ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges Seminar” on 21-22 Apr in New Orleans, LA
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (5 Apr 2019), DOC/EAR (13 Nov 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 (30 Aug 2019), DOT/FACR/OFAC (9 Sep 2019), HTSUS (3 Sep 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

 

[No items of interest today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a11
. Items Scheduled
for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a22
. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source:
Commerce/BIS) 

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

OGS_a33
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
(Source:
State/DDTC)

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

COMNEWS

(Source: Defense News, 13 Nov 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
The U.S. Air Force is the only American military service to have a designated headquarters office, led by a senior official, with the specific purpose of guiding foreign policy and 
helping broker arms sales. And that international affairs office, known as SAF/IA, has been through some big changes lately. Chief of those is its new leader, Kelli Seybolt, a career civil servant who became Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for International Affairs in April, after the departure of longtime SAF/IA boss Heidi Grant.
 
One of the Trump administration’s major priorities is export reform, particularly for unmanned aerial systems. How have the changes impacted the Air Force’s ability to export drones?
 
Aside from the U.S. export control processes, remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) exports are subject to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). While recognizing RPA exports are subject to additional review, the U.S. Air Force has taken the lead in developing a “commoditized” version of the MQ-9. This solution will allow us to quickly provide interested customers with projections for cost and schedule of a predefined standard configuration of MQ-9.
 
If a customer requests a unique capability, such as a nonstandard sensor, the U.S. Air Force will go through the formal process of delivering cost estimates for the development, integration and testing of that sensor. These tailor-made upgrades will inherently extend the developmental process of a sale and likely impact cost and delivery times.
 
According to Seybolt, “for partners who prefer off-the-shelf solutions, the commoditized option will allow the U.S. Air Force to deliver the most relevant capabilities more rapidly. Commoditization of high-demand systems ensures systematic policy hurdles are overcome in advance of the customer requests, making us more responsive to our partners.” …
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a25.
Expeditors News: “EU Publishes Revised Combined Common Customs Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature”

(Source: Expeditors News, 13 Nov 2019.)
 
On October 9, 2019, the European Union (EU) published the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 and establishing the Combined Nomenclature for the EU. This new edition will fully replace the current text of the Combined Nomenclature (CN), effective January 1, 2020.
 
The Combined Nomenclature is drawn up to meet the requirements of the Common Customs Tariff and the Statistical Nomenclature of the EU. The amendment is necessary to keep the Common Customs Tariff in line with the external trade policy objectives of the EU, to remain aligned to international agreements and to, where necessary, adapt its structure to meet modernization.
 
More information can be found in the Regulation (EU) 2019/1776.

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

NWS_a36.
Spokesman-Review: “Seattle Judge Keeps Ban on Internet Sales of 3D-Printed Gun Plans”
(Source: Spokesman-Review, Spokane, WA, 12 Nov 2019) [Excerpts.] 
 
Computer programs to make plastic guns with a 3D printer have to stay off the internet, at least for now, because the Trump administration failed to follow proper procedures for changing the rules that currently keep them offline, a federal judge in Seattle ruled Tuesday.
 
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik [appointed by President Clinton in 1998] agreed with Washington State and 18 other states that the way the U.S. State Department tried to lift the ban on internet sales of the plans was arbitrary, not supported by evidence, and a violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. That federal law governs the steps an agency must take when changing rules.
 
“The agency has simply abandoned, without acknowledgment or analysis, its previous position” that 3D-printed weapons posed unique threats to world peace, national security and foreign policy, the judge wrote. “Because it is arbitrary and capricious to ignore the contradiction in these circumstances, the agency action must be invalidated.”
 
In 2013, the State Department said the Arms Export Control Act gave it the authority to restrict the posting of computer-assisted design files that can be used to make guns with a 3D printer. It ordered a Texas company, Defense Distributed, which had posted those files, to remove them.  Eventually, Defense Distributed filed a lawsuit in Texas, contending among other things the rule was prior restraint on gun-related speech. The State Department countered that allowing the files on the internet would result in “the production of plastic firearms that are fully operable and virtually undetectable by conventional security measures, that their use to commit terrorism, piracy, assassinations, or other serious crimes would cause serious and long-lasting harm.”
 
A judge in Texas denied the company’s request for an injunction, and the circuit court of appeals agreed. In April 2018, the Federal government asked to dismiss the case, continuing to cite the need to ensure “articles useful for warfare or terrorism are not shipped from the United States.” But later that month, the federal government and Defense Distributed reached a tentative settlement that would allow the company to publish the files. The government announced a temporary modification of the rules under export law would take place at the end of July.
 
“No findings of fact or other statements are provided in the settlement that address, much less invalidate, the federal government’s prior analysis,” Lasnik said.  While the Trump administration has the authority to propose the change, it didn’t adequately notify Congress of its plans before announcing the change last year, he said. It didn’t offer a reason for the change or respond to public comments raising concerns. It justified the change by saying it wasn’t worried about firearms below .50 caliber or the kind that are readily available at stores.  That’s not a reasoned explanation, he said.
 
With Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office as the lead plaintiff, states sued to block the settlement before it took effect. After a hearing in his Seattle courtroom, Lasnik said his job wasn’t to decide the larger issues behind the potential danger of 3D guns, adding, “I wish the legislative and executive branches would step up to this.”  His job was to decide whether the federal agencies followed the rules to make the change. Tuesday, he ruled it hadn’t, and struck down the temporary rule change based on the tentative settlement. He declined, however, to issue an order preventing the federal government from issuing another temporary modification without warning. There’s no indication they are preparing to do that, he said.
 
Ferguson said it was “baffling” that the administration worked so hard to defend a rule that would allow access to untraceable, undetectable guns: “Even the president himself said in a tweet that this decision didn’t make any sense — one of the rare instances when I agreed with him.”  . . .
 
Since the temporary rule change was announced, and the state’s lawsuit was filed, the Legislature passed a law banning guns made by 3D printers. It’s a felony to make, own, buy, or sell such a weapon without government authorization, and an extra felony that can be charged for selling such a gun to a person ineligible to possess a firearm.

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

COMCOMMENTARY

COM_a17.
Myer Brown: “UK Government Remains Committed to Adopting New National Security Review Legislation”
(Source: Mayer Brown, 13 Nov 2019.) [Excerpt.]
 
* Principal Author: David M. Harrison, Esq., dharrison@mayerbrown.comMayer Brown.
 
The UK Government has pledged to adopt legislation to strengthen existing powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions in order to protect national security. The proposal was included in the legislative programme put forward by the Government in the Queen’s Speech on 14 October 2019, which was approved by Parliament on 24 October 2019. [FN/1]
 

The proposal confirms the Government’s intention to redefine its ability to intervene in transactions on national security grounds, and reflects the contents of a consultation document published under former Prime Minister Theresa May in July 2018 (the “White Paper“) [FN/2]. It comes shortly after the Government’s announcement on 18 September 2019 that it had intervened on national security grounds in respect of Advent International’s bid for Cobham plc – on which we commented here. [FN/3]

 

The proposal

 

Under the proposal, the key elements of the legislation will be threefold:

 
(1) A notification system – allowing businesses to flag transactions that may give rise to national security concerns to the Government for screening (similar to the US CFIUS process);
 
(2) Further powers to mitigate risks to national security – by adding conditions to a transaction, blocking a transaction (as a last resort) or imposing sanctions for non-compliance with the regime; and
 
(3) A safeguarding mechanism – allowing business to appeal decisions.
 
The Government intends the regime to be transparent and applicable across the United Kingdom as a whole, in all sectors of the economy and, crucially, to all businesses of any size; this suggests that there will be little room for de minimis criteria or safe harbours from scrutiny. However, the Government has sought to assure businesses that it expects to rule out national security risks quickly in most cases, allowing parties to proceed with certainty. To date, the Government has made 10 public interest interventions in transactions on national security grounds since the regime was overhauled in 2002.

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

COM_a28
.
Impex: “Implementing Documentation Compliance as an Important Need of International Trade”

(Source: ImpexDocs, 11 Nov 2019.)
 
International trade is an extremely complex process. The exporting country needs to devise and implement certain rules to ensure that the set standards are met without any compromise. At the same time, there are organizations that are assigned responsibilities to perform multiple checks at different stages to prevent any kind of disobedience with the rules and laws. An important part of the process is export documentation compliance which must be done according to the prescribed procedures.
 
As an exporter, you need to act responsibly while preparing every important trade documents, failing which may lead to dire consequences like legal actions, penalties, consignment delays, profit losses and blemished business reputation. Here are some important things to know in order to ensure compliant export documents.
 
Assign Responsibilities Carefully
 
You may choose to hire an agent or a person from your organization to supervise the process of export documentation. The person would be ethically and legally responsible for every detail in the documents and also for the documents’ accuracy and adherence to the prescribed formats. Make sure to:
 
– Choose an experienced person who is familiar with export regulations
– Assign the responsibility to the same person for every consignment
– Keep a check that the person understands the documents before signing
 
It would be great if the person is trained in the entire process as it would help you save time and efforts in a big way.
 
Nature And Quality Of Export Goods
 
The Australian Border Force maintains an elaborated list of prohibited and dangerous goods that are allowed for export through set procedures only. For example, if you want to export Australian native species of plants and animals, you must obtain an export permit from the Department of Environment and Energy.
 
Likewise, if you want to export plants and animals products from Australia, you must obtain phytosanitary/health certificates from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR). These documents should comply with:
 
– Australia’s Export Control Act of 1982
– Importing country requirements
 
In order to ensure that these compliance requirements are met, the DAWR implements a procedure of inspecting the goods intended for export. One of the purposes of these inspections is to ensure that the goods are export quality compliant and have been grown, prepared or processed in the recommended environments.
 
Compliance With The FTAs
 
Preparing documents that are compliant with the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) between Australia and other countries is in favour of the exporters. These FTAs list goods that can be traded at preferential rates (reduced tariffs) that add to the profits or the exporters. In order to enjoy these benefits, a certificate of origin certifying that the goods intended for export are prepared or manufactured in Australia must be obtained from one of the Chambers of Commerce.
 
An international trade software can be extremely useful in establishing compliance in the above-mentioned and many other ways. The mistakes that you are probable of committing while following manual documentation can be dramatically reduced with the help of one such tool.

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

COM_a39
.
M. Bell: “Managing Export Controls and Sanctions: It’s About Who You Know and What You Know”
(Source: JDSupra, 11 Nov 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
* Author: Matt Bell, Esq., matt.bell@fticonsulting.com, FTI Consulting.
 
A patchwork of domestic and international regulations has grown trickier to navigate over the past few years. Even the most mindful companies can stumble.
 
If you serve in a managerial or advisory role with a company that has foreign operations, suppliers or customers, several familiar phrases have probably caught your attention more often lately. Do “change to the entity list” and “new sanctions announced” sound familiar?
 
Global policies and norms around the exchange of goods, services and ideas are in flux. Various countries, multinational organizations and multilateral treaties with their own best interests in mind are all attempting to regulate trade between foreign nationals and across international boundaries. This has created an increasingly complex patchwork of disparate and sometimes conflicting rules.
 
The volume of changes and shifts in enforcement and interpretation of existing laws makes it tricky to navigate the regulatory environment. Accordingly, the risk of companies and their affiliates running afoul of regulators has risen significantly. Even the most seasoned and mindful officers with the best intentions can wind up scratching their heads over how to proceed.
 
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Those companies that are aware of certain interrelated elements of the regulatory environment and design and implement a robust compliance plan around it can improve their odds of success. …

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

COM_a410
.
Spectator: “The Crisis in Arms Control: What Crisis?”

(Source: Spectator Newsbrief, 12 Nov 2019)  [Summary.]
 
Arms control appears to be in a state of crisis. …. What crisis are we exactly talking about?
 
The US and Russia have recently pulled out of the 1987 INF treaty on intermediate nuclear forces, a landmark treaty that paved the way for the end of the Cold War. Even worse, both countries announced the development of spectacular new weapon systems. Meanwhile, ambitious China tries to portray itself as a non-aligned player and refuses to join current arrangements. In a world increasingly characterised by competitiveness rather than restraint, we could be witnessing a crisis in arms control.
 
People worry about the state of play for arms control and many indicators seem to prove them right. But before determining what lies behind these worries, it is necessary to have a closer look at the very concept of arms control. Absent a universally accepted definition, it may be helpful to establish what we want to talk about when addressing arms control’s ‘crisis’ – and what not.
 
In essence, arms control concerns efforts to control or limit the number of weapons and the ways in which they can be used in order to preserve, enhance or restore international peace and security. Specifically, it concerns the restriction of the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation, distribution or usage of  weapons.  In August 2019 President Trump officially pulled out of the 1987 INF treaty on intermediate nuclear forces, a landmark treaty that paved the way for the end of the Cold War.  Disarmament and non-proliferation are often mentioned in conjunction with arms control. Although associated, these are separate categories. A similar association is made with Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBMs), which are instruments that ‘contribute to reducing the dangers of armed conflict and of misunderstanding and miscalculation of military activities. Finally, arms control may be coupled with topics such as export control regimes, arrangements concerning arms trade, management or destruction of ammunition stockpiles or trafficking of small arms and light weapons.
 
Several of the major arms control agreements are essentially about limiting weaponry. This Spectator series therefore focuses on aspects of disarmament and non-proliferation in arms control. Furthermore, whereas the well-known arms control treaties are often about the statics of military capabilities (e.g. numbers, locations), CSBMs rather oversee the dynamics of armed forces (e.g. manoeuvres, exercises).
 
It therefore seems logical to consider these three areas – disarmament, non-proliferation and CSBMs – together, while leaving the more technical export control and trade regimes aside. …

 
back to top
 

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

(Source:Author) 
 
* Author: Oscar Gonzalez, Esq., oscarg@exportimportlaw.com, Gonzalez, Rolon, Valdespino, Rodriguez, LLC, 

 

Hundreds of people who took the October 2019 customs broker exam studied weeks or months to prepare, but many were still surprised and even traumatized by what awaited them at the exam site which contributed to the low pass rate. It is not uncommon for people that sit for the exam to complain about errors found in the eighty multiple-choice questions of the 4.5 hour exam. While those kind of complaints have arisen, the greater concerns are about the testing conditions and extreme security measures that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took. One of our students told us, “I am a former boxer and nothing makes me nervous. But my hands were shaking when I started that exam.”
The U.S. Customs Broker exam is given by CBP. Since the exam went electronic in October 2017, CBP has outsourced the exam to private contractors and subcontractors. The private contractor proctors the exam and secures dozens of exam sites across the nation. While the private contractor performs these duties, CBP is ultimately and immediately responsible for any problems and successes with the customs broker exam. Just as CBP will not allow an importer to pawn off responsibility for legal compliance to its customs broker, CBP should not pawn or assign its responsibility for the failures or success of the customs broker exam to private contractors and subcontractors. 

In administering the October 2019 exam, CBP ignored its own rules. Its Notice of Examination (
https://bit.ly/29gl6bo) reads: “Examinees may use any written reference material; however, use of any electronic device during the exam (e.g., laptop, iPad / Nook / Kindle, smart phone, personal digital assistant, smart watch, etc.) is strictly prohibited.” Thus people should have been allowed to bring in any written material, but no electronic devices. These are reasonable restrictions and allowances. People often depend on written resources developed and provided by the professional review courses they are enrolled in, like the one from our law firm. Some individuals also develop their own, personalized aids, including flash cards, mnemonics, rulers, and notes. The customs broker exam is open book. If you do not know how to classify goods going into the customs broker exam, there is no cheat sheet that is going to help you pass. Furthermore, CBP had always allowed people to bring with them any and all written material of their own choosing. As for banning electric devices, our students sometimes rely on sand timers, tiny and much cuter versions of the hour glasses. Unless you are Dorothy and your loathing of hour glasses is the Wicked Witch’s doing, who could object?  How could you cheat with a sand timer? Apparently some CBP’s proctors objected because they deviated from the Notice of Examination and from tradition to ban both written materials and sand timers. Take that, pass rate!

But CBP proctors not only objected to pre-industrial time pieces, they also banned catalog racks that people use to bind the HTSUS. I cannot recall ever being forced to read, much less consult, a towering pile of 3,500 loose leaf pages, especially not in the middle of a time crunch. I imagine that a good gust of wind would not have been conducive to the Gestapo security measures that the proctors were trying so hard to observe. Also, the catalog racks are nothing but solid steel, like really muscular three-hold binders. How could anyone use them to cheat?

I supposed that the racks could be turned into weapons…if you were in prison and you needed a shiv. I don’t say that lightly. The proctors seemed to be emulating prison conditions. We hear that women were asked to lift up their blouses and were also asked to expose their bare shoulders. While no cavity searches have been reported, some proctors required people to pat themselves down and search for hidden electronic devices. I wonder if the proctors were expecting someone to yell, “Aha, I caught myself! Officer, I would like to turn myself in, let me check my ID, give me a second, oh yes, I’d like to turn myself in, but may I first have my catalog racks back?”
 
Proctors demonstrated a vicious pettiness in other ways (as reported to us). One person was forced to remove the wrappers from her cough drops. Why? Maybe the wrappers contained the exam answers written in microscopic script or maybe they camouflaged an electronic device that, when swallowed, makes you smarter. People were forced to take off hair ties and jewelry (as if you can connect to the internet with a hoop ear ring). People were not allowed to bring in their suitcases with their course materials and were forced to make several trips from their car to their desk with about 75 pounds of course materials. We do not understand these tactics. Does CBP think that people that take the exam are children of billionaires?
Most exam facilities were not entirely conducive to exam-taking. Hundreds of people discovered that the tops of their desks did not have enough room for both CBP’s computer (the one where individuals take and record their answers) and all the materials that exam-takers are instructed to bring (which require more landing space than your average aircraft carrier). One person started nudging the computer to make room for the materials when the proctor issued the following warning, and here I paraphrase: “I will kick you out if you touch that computer one more time.” I suspect most people would have been both intimidated and baffled. How do you take the customs broker exam on the computer that CBP assigned to you when CBP doesn’t allow you touch that computer? If CBP is requiring that exam-takers answer riddles as a condition of taking the exam, it should make that clear in its Notice of Examination.

 
Of course, not all proctors acted so unpredictably, imperiously, or maliciously, but enough of them did, and that is the problem. Proctors may not have been reading from the same script, and whatever script or scripts they were consulting was not shared with the public. Proctors should not be allowed to spring new secret screening measures and certainly should not be allowed to deviate from CBP’s Notice of Examination. Abuse of discretion by proctors is now a larger and more certain problem than cheating. If proctors continue with this kind of nonsense, CBP will have to confront serious due process issues.
Another problem with the October 2019 customs broker exam is that CBP forced exam-takers to sign a secret agreement not to discuss the contents of the exam with anyone. I have not seen or read the agreement because it is a secret agreement and people were not allowed to keep a copy, but conscripting the public into clandestine activities again raises due process concerns, to say the least.

Alth
ough the exam is electronic, CBP for some unfathomable reason takes weeks to officially record the answers and inform individuals of their score and whether they passed or failed. CBP presumably has its answer key finalized long before the exam date. Why does it take so long to get pass/fail letter out then? Is it because CBP is finding out that the test takers are smarter than the test writers?
 
Lastly, CBP’s changed the exam date late in the game. In August 2019 (mind you, the exam was on October 17, 2019), CBP changed the exam date. The federal regulations say that the exam is to be given on “the fourth Wednesday in April and October unless the regularly scheduled examination date conflicts with a national holiday, religious observance, or other foreseeable event and the agency publishes in the Federal Register an appropriate notice of a change in the examination date.” It is now November and we still do not have a federal register notice telling us when the April 2020 exam date is. Moving the date at the last possible moment disrupts the travel and work plans for exam-takers. October 23 is national Mole Day. Perhaps CBP was concerned that holding the exam on that day would have infuriated the millions of people who annually take this day off from work to celebrate these short-sighted, subterranean mammals renown for burrowing intricate tunnels through prized gardens. Calamity avoided. Phew!
 
back to top
 

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_112.
ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges Seminar” on 21-22 Apr in New Orleans, LA
(Source: ECS)
 
*What:  Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges Seminar
*When:  April 21-22, 2020
*Where: 
Le Meridien
; New Orleans, LA
*Sponsor:  Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
*ECS Instructors:  Suzanne Palmer, Lisa Bencivenga
*Register 

here
 or by calling 866-238-4018 or
email
.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

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

EN_a214. 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: 13 Nov 2019: 84 FR 61674-61676Addition of Entities to the Entity List, Revision of an Entry on the Entity List, and Removal of Entities 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 (4 Jul 2019) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR is a 152-page Word document containing 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.FullCircleCompliance.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: 30 Aug 2019: 84 FR 45652-45654, Adjustment of Controls for Lower Performing Radar and Continued Temporary Modification of Category XI of the United States Munitions List.  


  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 30 August 2019) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR is a 371-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 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: 9 Sep 2019: 84 FR 47121-47123: Cuban Assets Control Regulations

 


USITC HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA)
, 1 Jan 2019: 19 USC 1202 Annex. Implemented by U.S. International Trade Commission. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)

  – 
Last Amendment: 4 Sep 2019: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1915   
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

EN_a315
. 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; and Assistant Editor, Alexander Witt. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 7,500 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOE/NRC, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, FAR/DFARS, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

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

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

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

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

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top