Bartlett's Annotated ITAR ("BITAR"); Including Latest ECR Changes - Yearly Subscription

Footnotes to errors in the official text of the ITAR.

Example: “…and variola virus (18 U.S.C. 175c); [sic]”

Footnote 83: So in original. Should be 18 U.S.C. 175(a), Unlawful Conduct. “[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, engineer, synthesize, acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, variola virus.”

History of amendments and effective dates.

Example:

Footnote 2: Amended by 79 FR 8082 (Feb. 11, 2014), effective Feb. 11, 2014.

Practice tips.

Example:

Footnote 8: Practice tip: Knowledge of ineligibility may be assumed if party’s name is posted on the System for Award Management website’s Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), an electronic, web-based system accessible at https://explore.data.gov/Information-and-Communications/Excluded-Parties-List-System-EPLS-/bxfh-jivs (last viewed Dec. 7, 2014), that identifies those parties excluded from receiving federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits. The Dep’t of Commerce has a denied party search tool for the consolidated screening list currently available on export.gov. In this first step, the search tool is a simple search companies can use from the link on export.gov. The tool combines nine export screening lists of Commerce, State and Treasury including: Denied Persons List, Entity List, Foreign Sanctions Evaders, ITAR Debarred, Palestinian Legislative Council List, Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List, Specially Designated Nationals and Unverified List. There is also an API available on developer.trade.gov for companies who wish to create their own in-house search from the consolidated list maintained on export.gov. ITA maintains the website and the consolidated lists are updated every day at midnight.

Agency enforcement requirements imposed upon certain companies through consent agreements that should be followed by all companies.

Example:

Footnote 36: The assistance does need not to involve technical data, U.S. or foreign origin, to be classified as defense services. See U.S. State Dept. Consent Agreement, In the Matter of Analytical Methods, Inc. 5 (Jan. 23, 2009), available at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/consent_agreements/pdf/AnalyticalMethods_ConsentAgreement.pdf (last viewed Jan. 2, 2013), stating in part:

(6) The Respondent acknowledges and accepts that . . .

(b) the furnishing of defense services to foreign persons – regardless of whether the underlying defense article(s) is of U.S. or foreign origin – is appropriately subject to the Department’s control under the ITAR, even when no technical data is involved (e.g., all the information relied upon in furnishing defense services to a foreign government or foreign person is in the public domain); . . .

See generally Alan G. Kashdan & Andres A. Castrillon, The Broad Scope Of ITAR-Controlled ‘Defense Services’-Lessons Learned From The Analytical Methods Case, 6 Int’l Gov’t Contractor 53, July 2009. (examining the unauthorized export of defense services in the DDTC settlement with Analytical Methods, Inc., and when TAAs may be required for providing defense services to foreign persons using dual-use products and technologies—even if no export of U.S.-origin, ITAR-controlled products or technology is involved; and the “creation” of defense articles when non-defense items are modified for a military purpose).as dual-use can be used to provide an ITAR regulated defense service and can become an ITAR regulated defense article when adapted or modified for a military application; . . . .

(7) Respondent further acknowledges . . . .

(e) that software designated as dual-use can be used to provide an ITAR regulated defense service and can become an ITAR regulated defense article when adapted or modified for a military application; . . .

See generally Alan G. Kashdan & Andres A. Castrillon, The Broad Scope Of ITAR-Controlled ‘Defense Services’-Lessons Learned From The Analytical Methods Case, 6 Int’l Gov’t Contractor 53, July 2009. (examining the unauthorized export of defense services in the DDTC settlement with Analytical Methods, Inc., and when TAAs may be required for providing defense services to foreign persons using dual-use products and technologies—even if no export of U.S.-origin, ITAR-controlled products or technology is involved; and the “creation” of defense articles when non-defense items are modified for a military purpose).