The Daily Bugle Monthly Highlights: March 2023

Every month we post the highlights of FCC’s Export/Import Daily Update (“The Daily Bugle”). The Daily Bugle is sent out every business day to approximately 10,000 readers, who keep up to date with changes in defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. It is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, edited by James E. Bartlett III and Elina Tsapouri.

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 European Union, 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. To subscribe, click here.

Last month’s highlights of The Daily Bugle included in this edition are:

1. EU Commission: “2022 Exceptional Update of the EU Control List of Dual-Use Items”; Wednesday, 1 Mar 2023; Item 5
2. Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Treasury Issue Joint Compliance Note on Russia-Related Sanctions Evasion and Export Controls; Friday, 3 Mar 2023; Item #4
3. Commerce/BIS Requests Comments – Technology Letter of Explanation; Wednesday, 8 Mar 2023; Item #1
4. European Commission Updates Consolidated FAQs on the Implementation of Council Regulation 833/2014 and 269/2014; Monday, 13 Mar 2023; Item #5
5. DHS/CBP: “New BIS License Types C65 – (TGL) Temporary General License and C66 – (SCAL) Supply Chain Authorization Letter”; Thursday, 16 Mar 2023; Item #4
6. S. Federal Court Grants DDTC’s Motion to Dismiss the Defense Distributed Motion to Stop State Department from Regulating the Export of 3-D-Gun Files; Monday, 20 Mar 2023; Item #5
7. CBP: How to Use the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE); Friday, 24 Mar 2023; Item #5
8. State/DDTC Updates AU, CA, UKOpen General License Pilot Program and Extends Validity to 2026; Tuesday, 28 Mar 2023; Item #4
9. Commerce/BIS: “Biden Administration and International Partners Release Export Controls and Human Rights Initiative Code of Conduct”; Friday, 31 Mar 2023; Item #4

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

EU Commission: “2022 Exceptional Update of the EU Control List of Dual-Use Items”

(Source: EU Commission, 27 Feb 2023) [Excerpts]

The Commission has adopted a Delegated Regulation updating the EU dual-use export control list in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/821.

On 23 February 2023, the European Commission adopted a Delegated Regulation updating the EU dual-use export control list in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/821, in order to bring it in line with the decisions taken in the Australia Group – the multilateral export control regime in charge of preventing the proliferation of chemical and biological items – in 2022.

This update adds some emerging technologies in the biological sector to the EU Dual-Use List. In particular, the updated EU control list includes four new entries for marine toxins, namely brevetoxins, gonyautoxins, nodularins and palytoxin, which are naturally present in marine environments but can also be synthesised and used for biological weapons, for example. Other changes were mostly on removal and changes of references, and editorial changes.

Subject to the Council and the European Parliament raising no objections within a period of two months, the Commission Delegated Regulation (Ref. C(2023)1164) will be published and will enter into force on the day following that of its publication.

More information

The ‘Comprehensive Change Note Summary – exceptional update 2022‘ provides a detailed overview of all changes compared to the 2022 EU Dual-Use Control List across all 10 categories.

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

Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Treasury Issue Joint Compliance Note on Russia-Related Sanctions Evasion and Export Controls 

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), and the Department of Justice today issued a joint compliance note on the use of third-party intermediaries or transshipment points to evade Russian- and Belarussian-related sanctions and export controls. Today’s note marks the first collective effort by the three agencies to inform the private sector about enforcement trends and provide guidance to the business community on compliance with U.S. sanctions and export laws. The three agencies will issue these advisories on an ongoing basis. …

The compliance note highlights one of the most common tactics used to evade Russia-related sanctions and export controls: the use of third-party intermediaries or transshipment points to circumvent restrictions, disguise the involvement of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) or parties on the Entity List in transactions, and obscure the true identities of end users. The note provides warning signs on what to look for if a company suspects that a customer is using a third- party intermediary to evade sanctions or export controls as well as recent examples of tactics allegedly used by defendants to evade detection while attempting to flout the controls. Further, the compliance note provides guidance to companies on how to maintain an effective, risk-based sanctions and export compliance program. 

Since Feb. 24, 2022, BIS has implemented a series of stringent export controls that restrict Russia’s access to the technologies and other items that it needs to sustain its illegal war in Ukraine. These controls target Russia’s defense, aerospace, and maritime sectors, and have been expanded to Russia’s oil refining, industrial, and commercial sectors, as well as to luxury goods used by Russian elites. BIS’s controls have also been applied to Belarus for its substantial enabling of Russia’s invasion. Additional information on BIS’s actions is available online at: bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/country-guidance/russia-belarus. 

OFAC will continue to use, its broad targeting authorities against non-U.S. persons that provide ammunition or other support to the Russian Federation’s military-industrial complex, as well as to private military companies or paramilitary groups participating in or otherwise supporting the Russian Federation’s unlawful and unjustified attack on Ukraine. OFAC will continue to target Russia’s efforts to resupply its weapons and sustain its war of aggression against Ukraine, including any foreign persons who assist the Russian Federation in those efforts. 

Additionally, OFAC will continue to impose civil monetary penalties against U.S. persons who violate OFAC sanctions to benefit Russia, and against non-U.S. persons who cause U.S. persons to violate the Russia sanctions programs. 

The Justice Department’s enforcement of these new measures has been led by Task Force KleptoCapture, an interagency law enforcement task force dedicated to enforcing the sweeping sanctions, export controls, and economic countermeasures that the United States, along with its foreign allies and partners, has imposed in response to Russia’s unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine. Announced by the Attorney General on March 2, 2022, and under the leadership of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the task force will continue to leverage all tools and authorities to combat efforts to evade or undermine the collective actions taken by the U.S. government in response to Russian military aggression. 

The full compliance note is available here: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/ enforcement/3240-tri-seal-compliance-note/file

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

Commerce/BIS Requests Comments – Technology Letter of Explanation

(Source: Today’s Federal Register, 88 FR 14329, 8 Mar 2023) [Excerpts]

* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

* ACTION: Notice of information collection, request for comment.

* SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.

* ABSTRACT: This collection is necessary under section 748.8(o) and Supplement 2 section (o) to Part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Licensing officers must make decisions on licensing the export of United States commodities and technical data to foreign countries. 

When an export involves certain technical data or knowhow described in the Export Administration Regulation, additional information is required to fully understand the transaction and make a licensing decision. 

The Technology Letter of Explanation provides a written description of the technology proposed for export sufficient to allow BIS technical staff to evaluate the impact of licensing the export on United States national security and foreign policy. 

The letter of assurance puts the consignee on notice that the technology is subject to U.S. export controls and causes the consignee to certify that it will not release the data or the direct product of the data to certain specified country group nationals; providing assurance that U.S. national security data will be safeguarded and used only for the stated end use. The additional information is necessary to evaluate technology exports as covered under this collection.

* DATES: To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 8, 2023.

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

European Commission Updates Consolidated FAQs on the Implementation of Council Regulation 833/2014 and 269/2014

(Source: European Commission, 8 Mar 2023) 

This document is a working document drafted by the Commission services to give guidance to national authorities, EU operators and citizens for the implementation and the interpretation of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/263. By analogy, the FAQs therein also apply to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006. Only the Court of Justice of the EU is competent to interpret EU law. National authorities and economic operators may make use of this guidance based on the text, context and purpose of the aforementioned regulations, to achieve the uniform application of sanctions across the EU.

Read the FAQs here.

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

DHS/CBP: “New BIS License Types C65 – (TGL) Temporary General License and C66 – (SCAL) Supply Chain Authorization Letter”

(Source: DHS/CBP/CSMS, 15 Mar 2023)

In the Automated Export System (AES), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has activated new BIS License Types C65 – (TGL) TEMPORARY GENERAL LICENSE and C66 – (SCAL) SUPPLY CHAIN AUTHORIZATION LETTER.

On October 13, 2022, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an interim final rule effective October 7, 2022. Among other actions, this interim final rule established a new Temporary General License to avoid disruption of supply chains for certain items that are ultimately destined to customers outside of People’s Republic of China (China) or Macau. In a separate series of actions, the BIS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration issued a number of Supply Chain Authorization Letters which describe specific authorizations granted pursuant to requests based on exigent circumstances of actual or potential supply chain disruptions. As a result of these actions, the following change will be made to the Automated Export System (AES) in order for exporters and authorized agents to successfully report electronic export information in the AES.

New License Code C65 (TGL)

An update has been made to AES to create new License Codes C65 “Temporary General License” (TGL), which authorizes certain exports, reexports, in-country transfers, and exports from abroad destined to or within China or Macau by companies not headquartered in Country Groups D:1 or D:5 or E (see supplement no. 1 to part 740 of the EAR) to continue or engage in integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, quality assurance, and distribution of items covered by ECCN 3A090, 4A090, and associated software and technology in ECCN 3D001, 3E001, 4D090, or 4E001; or any item that is a computer, integrated circuit, “electronic assembly” or “component” and associated software and technology, specified elsewhere on Commerce Control List (supplement no. 1 to part 774), which meets or exceeds the performance parameters of ECCN 3A090 or 4A090. The full terms of this Temporary General License are described in General Order No. 4 of in paragraph (d) in supplement no. 1 to part 736 of the EAR.

AES filers must adhere to the following new reporting when using C65 (TGL) to prevent the return of fatal errors from AES.

• Report License Code: C65 Temporary General License (TGL)
• Allowable ECCNs: 3A090, 4A090, 3D001, 3E001, 4D090, 4E001, or any item that is a computer, integrated circuit, “electronic assembly” or “component” and associated software and technology, specified elsewhere on Commerce Control List (supplement no. 1 to part 774), which meets or exceeds the performance parameters of ECCN 3A090 or 4A090.
• Allowable Export Information Codes: All except UG
• Allowable Modes of Transportation: All except ‘70’ (Fixed Transport)

Please refer to “General Order No. 4” in paragraph (d) in supplement no. 1 to part 736 of the EAR for additional requirements for this Temporary General License. This does not authorize the export, reexport, in-country transfer, or export from abroad to “end-users” or “ultimate consignees” in China or Macau. This Temporary General License does not overcome the license requirements of §§ 744.11 or 744.21 when an entity listed in supplements no. 4 or 7 to part 744 is a party to the transaction as described in § 748.5(c) through (f) of the EAR, or when there is knowledge of any other prohibited end use or end user. This Temporary General License is only for companies that engage in the specific activities authorized under this Temporary General License. This Temporary General License and its associated License Code (TGL) are valid for use through April 7, 2023.

New License Code C66 (SCAL)

An update has been made to AES to create License Type Code C66 “Supply Chain Authorization Letter” (SCAL). The BIS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration issued a number of such letters in response to specific requests based on exigent circumstances of actual or potential supply chain disruptions. Recipients of Supply Chain Authorization Letters must comply with the specific terms issued by BIS in such letters. A Supply Chain Authorization Letter is only valid for use by the original recipient of the letter or by parties authorized therein.

AES filers must adhere to the following new reporting when using C66 (SCAL) to prevent the return of fatal errors from AES. Supply Chain Authorization Letter

• Report License Code: C65 Supply Chain Authorization Letter (SCAL)
• Allowable ECCNs: All, including EAR99.
• Allowable Export Information Codes: All except UG
• Allowable Modes of Transportation: All except ‘70’ (Fixed Transport)

A complete list of all of the AES License Codes and reporting instructions for these types can be found at: AESTIR Appendix F – License and License Exemption Type Codes | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (cbp.gov)

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

U.S. Federal Court Grants DDTC’s Motion to Dismiss the Defense Distributed Motion to Stop State Department from Regulating the Export of 3-D-Gun Files

(Source: Slip Copy, 2023 WL 2544334, U.S. District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division., March 15, 2023) [Excerpts; citations and most text deleted.]

* CASE: Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Dep’t of State, et al, Defendants.

* JUDGE: Robert Pitman, U.S. District Judge

* ORDER: Before the Court is Defendants U.S. Department of State, et al.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a response, and Defendants filed a reply. Having considered the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted.

1. BACKGROUND:
2. Defense Distributed I

In 2012, Defense Distributed (“DD”) posted computer files on the internet that enabled individuals with 3-D printers to produce operable plastic firearms or firearm components. See Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:15-CV-372-RP (W.D. Tex. filed May 6, 2015) (“Def. Distributed I”). In May 2013, the State Department (“State”) advised DD that it may have exported technical data regulated under then-operable United States Munitions List (“USML”) Category I without the authorization required by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”). DD removed the technical data and submitted a commodity jurisdiction request. State ultimately determined that some files were subject to the ITAR, while others were not.

After this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (and was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit), the Court ordered the parties to exchange written settlement demands that culminated in a Settlement Agreement executed on June 29, 2018. Under the Settlement Agreement, State agreed, among other things, to take temporary actions concerning State’s regulation of technical data in the form of certain 3-D-gun files, to the extent authorized by law, including the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). 

Plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to dismissal of their claims with prejudice and executed a broad release of claims that discharged State “from any and all claims, demands and causes of action of every kind, nature or description, whether currently known or unknown, which Plaintiffs may have had, may now have, or may hereafter discover that were or could have been raised in the Action.” (Id.).

     Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, on July 27, 2018, State announced it was temporarily modifying the USML to exclude the 3-D-gun files at issue in the DD litigation and sent a letter to DD approving the 3-D-gun files for public release. Plaintiffs acknowledged that these actions complied with the Settlement Agreement. On July 27, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(a)(1)(B). … On July 30, 2018, this Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

1. Defense Distributed II

Plaintiffs filed this suit on July 29, 2018, originally against only the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey and the Los Angeles City Attorney. On November 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint against the Attorney General of New Jersey and State Department and related officials.¹ 

Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue declaratory and injunctive relief against the State Department to stop the agency from regulating the export of 3-D-gun files. They also seek monetary damages for an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement. 

On April 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which the Court denied the same day. On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and the Court held a hearing on the motion on May 14.²

However, before the Court could rule on the preliminary injunction, Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of mootness.³ Shortly after, on June 21, 2021, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.⁴ 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ APA and constitutional claims are moot because the agency no longer regulates the export of 3-D gun files under the ITAR. According to Defendants, that regulatory authority has been transferred by final administrative rules to the Department of Commerce.⁵

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief are subject to dismissal because they are barred by res judicata. They argue that Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction are barred by this Court’s prior dismissal in Defense Distributed I, which dealt with the same parties, the same allegations, in the same court. Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ non-contract claims have been released by the Settlement Agreement.

Finally, Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. They state that Plaintiff’s contract-based claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are barred because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for breach of contract claims beyond money damages. Further, Defendants argue that the remaining money damages claims should either be dismissed or transferred to the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

In response, Plaintiffs argue that the injunctive and declaratory claims are not moot for several reasons. First, they posit that the State Department has failed the voluntary cessation test, so the agency cannot moot the case. Second, they argue that the State Department’s ITAR regime still applies to their speech. Moreover, they argue that the State Department still controls licensing under the relevant export administration regulations (“EAR”). 

Plaintiffs also contest the idea that res judicata bars their claims because it is premature at the motion to dismiss stage, and that Defense Distributed I did not render a final judgment and dealt with different claims. Moreover, they argue that the Settlement Agreement did not bar claims to enforce its terms or claims falling under the Constitution or APA. 

Finally, they argue that the Tucker Act does not apply because they potentially bring a state law contract claim, and that transfer to the Court of Federal Claims is barred by the Settlement Agreement. 

In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask for leave to amend their complaint to limit damages to the $10,000 threshold authorized by the Little Tucker Act.

1. LEGAL STANDARD . . .

III. DISCUSSION. Defendants’ motion to dismiss contains three distinct arguments: (1) Plaintiffs’ injunctive claims are moot because the State Department no longer regulates the export of 3-D gun files, (2) Plaintiffs’ injunctive claims are barred by res judicata and the Settlement Agreement, and (3) the remaining monetary claims should be transferred or dismissed. The Court will address each in turn.

1. Mootness . . . 
2. Voluntary Cessation . . .
3. ITAR Regime. As an alternative, Plaintiffs argue that the State Department still has regulatory jurisdiction over the speech at issue. Plaintiffs argue that the Commerce Department’s final rule declined to take regulatory jurisdiction for “defense articles … that are either (i) inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the UMSL or (ii) if of a type common to nonmilitary firearms applications, possess parameters or characteristics that provide a military or intelligence advantage to the United States.” 

They argue that “3D files for fully automatic firearms, silencers, and certain other articles were not transferred to the Commerce Department and remain subject to State Department regulation.” 

In their reply, Defendants argue that nothing in Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges an intent to export automatic firearm files. And, because they have not sought a determination from the State Department regarding such files, Plaintiffs cannot show that they would in fact be regulated under ITAR, much less that the provision would be enforced against them. 

Here, Plaintiffs’ claims run into two key issues: (1) Their complaint does not allege any intent to export the files that allegedly remain under the State Department’s jurisdiction, and (2) Plaintiffs’ complaint is unripe because they have not submitted the files to the State Department for a commodity-jurisdiction (“CJ”) request. . . .

3. EAR Regime. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that their complaint is not moot because the State Department still controls licensing of speech (i.e.,firearm file exports) under the EAR regime. The 2020 Commerce Department Final Rule entails “an interagency review process that includes review by the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy.” But Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that participating in an interagency review subjects that agency to jurisdiction—and Plaintiffs’ injury is even more attenuated by the fact that the hypothetical interagency review has yet to take place. 

As the Fifth Circuit held in Allied Home Mortgage Corp. v. HUD, “The potential for a future dispute of another nature, presenting other issues, is immaterial. Should such a subsequent dispute arise, it is a matter for another lawsuit, not a reason to keep this one alive.” Similarly here, the notion that State might one day deny Plaintiffs a license is precisely the sort of conjectural injury that falls outside of Article III jurisdiction. . . .

1. Res Judicata and Settlement Agreement. Defendants raise two additional arguments: that the suit is precluded by res judicata and barred by the Settlement Agreement. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to sue Defendants for injunctive relief, it does not reach these remaining defenses.
2. Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract Claims . . .

2023. CONCLUSION. For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to amend, if at all, on or before March 29, 2023.

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

CBP: How to Use the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)

(Source: CBP ACE and Automated Systems)

ACE is the U.S. electronic Single Window platform for all trade processing, including all Manifest, Cargo Release, Post-release, Export and Partner Government Agency (PGA) data. Trade users can access ACE via two channels: The ACE Secure Data Portal (ACE Portal) and electronic data interchange (EDI). Deciding on which ACE access method is needed depends on the specific trade activity. Review the information below to determine what is needed to successfully connect with ACE.

The ACE Secure Data Portal

The ACE Secure Data Portal (ACE Portal) is a web-based entry point for ACE. It provides a centralized online access point to connect CBP, the trade community and government agencies involved in importing goods into the United States.

How to get started

In order to use the ACE Portal, companies must first submit an application for approval. Additional details are available in the links below:

• Introduction to ACE Secure Data Portal Account
• Managing an ACE Secure Data Portal Account
• Applying for an ACE Secure Data Portal Account

The ACE Portal provides account holders the ability to:

• Receive, respond to, and monitor CBP Forms 28, 29, 4647,
• Access AD/CVD case management and message information database,
• Identify and evaluate compliance issues,
• Store employee, driver, conveyance, and equipment record information,
• Create entry number banks for border line release,
• Set up payment options,
• Review and respond to filings,
• Create blanket declarations for entry summary processing and nationwide view,
• Access reports tool to compile data and perform national trend analysis.

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

State/DDTC Updates AU, CA, UK Open General License Pilot Program and Extends Validity to 2026

(Source: State/DDTC, 27 Mar 2023) [Excerpts]

On July 13, 2022, the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued two open general licenses as part of a pilot program pursuant to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. parts 120-130, §120.22(b). These open general licenses were originally published with a validity expiring July 31, 2023. The new licenses will expire July 21, 2026.

DDTC has now updated both open general licenses to extend their validity period and update citations for certain referenced ITAR sections that have since moved. Extending the validity period of the open general licenses by three years was necessary in order to allow DDTC to collect sufficient data to consider the usefulness of the Open General License pilot program and to provide industry with sufficient certainty to be able to rely on the open general licenses without fear that they could expire more quickly than a traditional license.

DDTC has also made other non-substantive edits to both open general licenses to clarify that multiple defense articles need not be reexported or retransferred simultaneously and that the open general licenses can be used to reexport or retransfer a single defense article. 

A link to each updated open general license is provided below. The Department will also be publishing a Federal Register notice in the near future to further inform the public of this extension. 

Link to updated Open General License No. 1, “Qualifying Retransfers within Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom”

Link to updated Open General License No. 2, “Qualifying Reports Between or Among Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom“

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

Commerce/BIS: “Biden Administration and International Partners Release Export Controls and Human Rights Initiative Code of Conduct”

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

The United States continues to put human rights at the center of our foreign policy. The Export Controls and Human Rights Initiative – launched at the first Summit for Democracy as part of the Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal – is a multilateral effort intended to counter state and non-state actors’ misuse of goods and technology that violate human rights. During the Year of Action following the first Summit, the United States led an effort to establish a voluntary, nonbinding written code of conduct outlining political commitments by Subscribing States to apply export control tools to prevent the proliferation of goods, software, and technologies that enable serious human rights abuses. Written with the input of partner countries, the Code of Conduct complements existing multilateral commitments and will contribute to regional and international security and stability. 

In addition to the United States, the governments that have endorsed the voluntary Code of Conduct are: Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Kosovo, Latvia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The Code of Conduct is open for all Summit for Democracy participants to join. 

The Code of Conduct calls for Subscribing States to: 

• Take human rights into account when reviewing potential exports of dual-use goods, software, or technologies that could be misused for the purposes of serious violations or abuses of human rights. 
• Consult with the private sector, academia, and civil society representatives on human rights concerns and effective implementation of export control measures. 
• Share information with each other on emerging threats and risks associated with the trade of goods, software, and technologies that pose human rights concerns. 
• Share best practices in developing and implementing export controls of dual-use goods and technologies that could be misused, reexported, or transferred in a manner that could result in serious violations or abuses of human rights. 
• Encourage their respective private sectors to conduct due diligence in line with national law and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights or other complementing international instruments, while enabling non-subscribing states to do the same. 
• Aim to improve the capacity of States that have not subscribed to the Code of Conduct to do the same in accordance with national programs and procedures. 

We will build on the initial endorsements of the ECHRI Code of Conduct by States at the Summit for Democracy and seek additional endorsements from other States. We will convene a meeting later this year with Subscribing States to begin discussions on implementing the commitments in the Code of Conduct. We will also continue discussions with relevant stakeholders including in the private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical community.