Company Fined $301K for Exporting Thermal Imaging Cameras to Hong Kong, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Mexico

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: Danielle McClellan

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (Milwaukee Electric) of Brookfield, WI has settled with the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on 25 charges of Engaging in Prohibited Conduct (764.2(a)). The company has agreed to pay a fine of $301,000 and will not be debarred.

Between April 2012 and May 2014 Milwaukee Electric exported thermal imaging cameras classified as 6A003.b.4 (controlled for NS and RS) to Hong Kong, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Mexico without obtaining the required Department of Commerce export licenses. The total value of all shipments was approximately $129,284…nearly half of the fine that the company will pay.

Settlement Agreement: https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/export-violations/1099-e2489/file

Tips on How to Resolve AES Fatal Errors

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: census@subscriptions.census.gov, 18 Jan 2017.)

When a shipment is filed to the AES, a system response message is generated and indicates whether the shipment has been accepted or rejected. If the shipment is accepted, the AES filer receives an Internal Transaction Number (ITN) as confirmation. However, if the shipment is rejected, a Fatal Error notification is received.

To help you resolve AES Fatal Errors, here are some tips on how to correct the most frequent errors that were generated in AES for this month.

Fatal Error Response Code: 336

  • Narrative: Ultimate Consignee State Cannot be Reported
  • Reason: The Country of Destination reported does not allow a State Code.
  • Resolution: Report a State Code only if the Country of Destination is the United States or Mexico. Verify the Ultimate Consignee Country Code and State Code, correct the shipment and resubmit.

 

Fatal Error Response Code: 503

  • Narrative: The Port of Unlading Code is missing. All vessel shipments, and any air shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico must provide a Port of Unlading Code.
  • Reason: The Port of Unlading Code is missing. All vessel shipments, and any air shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico must provide a Port of Unlading Code.
  • Resolution: The Port of Unlading Code is the foreign port where the exported merchandise is unloaded from the exporting carrier. Report a valid Port of Unlading Code for all vessel shipments, and any air shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico. Verify the Port of Unlading Code, correct the shipment and resubmit.

 

For a complete list of Fatal Error Response Codes, their reasons, and resolutions, see Appendix A – Commodity Filing Response Messages.

It is important that AES filers correct Fatal Errors as soon as they are received in order to comply with the Foreign Trade Regulations. These errors must be corrected prior to export for shipments filed predeparture and as soon as possible for shipments filed postdeparture, but not later than five calendar days after departure.

For further information or questions, contact the U.S. Census Bureau’s Data Collection Branch.

EAR Expands License Application Support Document Requirements for Hong Kong

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: John Black

Effective April 19, 2017, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will  require persons planning on exporting and reexporting to Hong Kong any items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) for national security (NS), missile technology (MT), nuclear nonproliferation (NP column 1), or chemical and biological weapons (CB) reasons to obtain, prior to the export or reexport, a copy of a Hong Kong import license or a written statement from the Hong Kong Government that such a license is not required.   The purpose of this change is to require that the Hong Kong Government issue an import license as an acknowledgement that sensitive EAR-controlled items are entering Hong Kong and as an agreement to prevent unauthorized reexport or transfer of those items to prohibited destinations.  Interestingly, the prohibited destination that most concerns the US is the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  The EAR treats Hong Kong as a separate “country” from the PRC even though the PRC, the United Nations, and nearly everybody else in the world considers Hong Kong to be part of the PRC because Hong Kong is part of the PRC.

Leaving behind the interesting point that the EAR treats Hong Kong as if it is not part of the PRC, there are a lot of details in this new rule.  In addition what was described above, this rule will also require persons planning on reexporting from Hong Kong any item subject to the EAR and controlled for NS, MT, NP column 1, or CB reasons to obtain a Hong Kong export license or a statement from Hong Kong government that such a license is not required. This final rule will be effective April 19, 2017.

The following amendments have been made:

  • In § 740.2, add paragraphs (a)(19) and (20) to read as follows:

(a) *  *  *

(19) The exporter or reexporter to Hong Kong of any item subject to the EAR and controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP Column 1, or CB reasons has not received one of the following with respect to the item:

(i) A copy of an import license issued to the Hong Kong importer by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers all items to be exported or reexported pursuant to that license exception for which a Hong Kong import license is required and that is valid on the date of the export or reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no import license is required to import into Hong Kong the item(s) to be exported or reexported. The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong importer or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one export or reexport to Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

(20) The reexporter from Hong Kong of any item subject to the EAR controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP column 1, or CB reasons has not received one of the following with respect to the item:

(i) An export license issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers all items to be reexported pursuant to that license exception for which a Hong Kong export license is required and that is valid on the date of the reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no Hong Kong export license is required for the item(s) to be rexported.

The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong reexporter or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one reexport from Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

  • 748.9(b) is amended by revising the section heading, revising paragraph (b) and all notes to paragraph (b), and adding two sentences to the end paragraph of (e)(1), to read as follows:

§ 748.9    Support documents for evaluation of foreign parties in license applications and/or for promoting compliance with license requirements.

(b) Requirements to obtain support documents for license applications. Unless an exception in paragraph (c) of this section applies, a support document is required for certain license applications for:

(1) The People’s Republic of China (PRC) other than the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (see §§ 748.10 and 748.11(a)(2));

(2) ‘‘600 Series Major Defense Equipment’’ (see § 748.11);

(3) Firearms and related commodities to member countries of the Organization of American States (see § 748.12); and

(4) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (see § 748.13).

Note 1 to Paragraph (b): On a case-by-case basis, BIS may require license applicants to obtain a support document for any license application.

Note 2 to Paragraph (b): For End-Use Certificate requirements under the Chemical Weapons Convention see § 745.2 of the EAR.

*       *       *       *       *

(e) *  *  *

(1) *  *  * The documents issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region that are required pursuant to § 748.13 are not used to evaluate license applications. They must be obtained before shipment and need not be obtained before submitting a license application.

  • Redesignate § 748.13 as § 748.14 and add new § 748.13 to read as follows:

§ 748.13    Hong Kong import and export licenses.

(a) Requirement to obtain the document—(1) Exports and reexports to Hong Kong. An exporter or reexporter must obtain the documents described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section before using a license issued by BIS to export or reexport to Hong Kong any item subject to the EAR and controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP column 1, or CB reasons. Collectively, the documents issued by Hong Kong must cover all of the items to be exported or reexported pursuant to a license.

(i) A copy of an import license issued to the Hong Kong importer by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers the items to be exported or reexported pursuant to that BIS license for which a Hong Kong import license is required and that is valid on the date of the export or reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no import license is required to import into Hong Kong the item(s) to be exported or reexported to Hong Kong. The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong importer or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one export or reexport to Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

(2) Reexports from Hong Kong. No license issued by BIS may be used to reexport from Hong Kong any item subject to the EAR controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP column 1, and/or CB reasons unless the reexporter has received either:

(i) An export license issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers all items to be rexported pursuant to that BIS license for which a Hong Kong export license is required and that is valid on the date of the reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no export license is required from Hong Kong for the item(s) to be reexported. The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong reexporter or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one reexport from Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

(b) Recordkeeping. The documents required to be obtained by paragraph (a) of this section must be retained and made available to the U.S. Government upon request in accordance with part 762 of the EAR.

  • In § 762.2 remove the word ‘‘and’’ from the end of paragraph (b)(52); remove the period from the end of paragraph (b)(53) and add in its place a semicolon followed by the word ‘‘and’’; add paragraph (b)(54) to read as follows:

§ 762.2    Records to be retained.

*       *       *       *       *

(b) *  *  * (54) § 748.13, Certain Hong Kong import and export licenses.

 

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-00446.pdf

BIS Announces Favorable Export License Approval Policy for India

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: John Black

Effective January 19, 2017, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to put in place a favorable export license approval policy for military items destined for India.  BIS stated that it generally will approve license applications subject to national security controls or regional stability controls to implement state that the US commitments related to the US and India becoming Major Defense Partners (according to the India-US Joint Statement of June 7, 2016).

More specifically, the following amendments have been made:

  • PART 742
    • 742.4 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

§ 742.4 National security.

(b) * * *

(8) For India, there is a general policy of approval for license applications to export, reexport, or transfer items, including ‘‘600 series’’ items, for civil or military end uses in India, for ultimate end use by the Government of India, for reexport to countries in Country Group A:5, or for return to the United States, so long as such items are not for use in nuclear, ‘‘missile,’’ or chemical or biological weapons activities.

*       *       *       *       *

  • 742.6 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows: § 742.6    Regional Stability.

(b) *  *  *

(7) For India, there is a general policy of approval for license applications to export, reexport, or transfer items, including ‘‘600 series’’ items, for civil or military end uses in India, for ultimate end use by the Government of India, for reexport to countries in Country Group A:5, or for return to the United States, so long as such items are not for use in nuclear, ‘‘missile,’’ or chemical or biological weapons activities.

  • PART 748
    • 748.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 748.15    Authorization Validated End-User (VEU).

(a) *  *  *

(2) In evaluating an end user for eligibility under authorization VEU, the ERC will consider a range of information, including such factors as: The entity’s record of exclusive engagement in appropriate end-use activities; the entity’s compliance with U.S. export controls; the need for an on- site review prior to approval; the entity’s capability of complying with the requirements of authorization VEU; the entity’s agreement to on-site reviews by representatives of the U.S. Government to ensure adherence to the conditions of the VEU authorization; and the entity’s relationships with U.S. and foreign companies. In addition, when evaluating the eligibility of an end user, the ERC will consider the status of export controls and the support and adherence to multilateral export control regimes of the government of the eligible destination.

(d) End-use restrictions. Items obtained under authorization VEU in China may be used only for civil end uses and may not be used for any activities described in part 744 of the EAR. Items obtained under authorization VEU in India may be used for either civil or military end uses and may not be used for any activities described in part 744 of the EAR. Exports, reexports, or transfers made under authorization VEU may be made to an end user listed in Supplement No. 7 to this part only if the items will be consigned to and for use by the validated end user. Eligible end-users who obtain items under VEU may only:

*       *       *       *       *

Paragraph (7)(ii) of the section titled Required Information for Validated End-User Authorization Requests in Supplement No. 8 to part 748 is revised to read as follows:

Supplement No. 8 to Part 748— Information Required in Requests for Validated End-User (VEU) Authorization

* * * * *

Required Information for Validated End-User Authorization Requests

* * * * *

(7) * * *

(ii) Understands and will abide by all authorization VEU end-use restrictions, including the requirement that items received under authorization VEU will only be used for authorized end-uses and may not be used for any activities described in part 744 of the EAR;

* * * * *

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-00439.pdf

US Makes Major Schedule B Tariff Updates

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: Integration Point)

This year many countries have published updates to their tariff schedules based on the WCO 2017 changes.  The United States has previously published updates to US HTS, but just yesterday the U.S. updated the Schedule B Tariff Schedule to the WCO 2017 changes.

Last year the Integration Point Global Trade Content team published a summary on the WCO 2017 changes. This is a great opportunity to review what subheadings are impacted and how. Click here to download.

The United States Substantially Relaxes Existing Embargo on Sudan

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: Cari N. Stinebower, Esq., cstinebower@crowell.com, 202-624-2757; Alan W.H. Gourley; Esq., agourley@crowell.com, 202-624-2561 and +44-20-7413-1342 (London Office); and Carlton Greene, Esq., cgreene@crowell.com, 202-624-2818.  All of Crowell & Morning LLP.

(Source: Crowell & Moring LLP)

On January 13, 2017, the United States suspended most of the comprehensive embargo that it has maintained on Sudan since the Clinton Administration. As described further below, new authorizations have been issued to permit U.S. persons to engage in most commercial activity with Sudan, including the exportation of most goods or services to Sudan and persons in Sudan, and to unblock property previously frozen under these sanctions. However, sanctions relating to the Darfur region of Sudan remain, and these, along with other sanctions programs relating to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, may continue to affect transactions with Sudan.

 

Issuance of New Executive Order

On January 13, President Obama issued an (as-yet-unnumbered) Executive Order (EO) which announced the new U.S. policy changes towards Sudan. In recognition of a series of “positive actions” by the Government of Sudan, the EO announced that it would terminate most aspects of the two previous EOs-EO 13067 (Nov. 3, 1997) and EO 13412 (Oct. 13, 2006)-that had authorized the comprehensive embargo on Sudan. Importantly, however, this revocation will only occur on July 12, 2017 and only after the Secretary of State, in consultation with other Administration colleagues, publishes a notice that “the Government of Sudan has sustained the positive actions that gave rise to this order….”

 

Relaxation of OFAC Sanctions

In parallel to the new Executive Order, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) dramatically relaxed the existing restrictions imposed in the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR). Specifically, OFAC issued a final rule establishing a new General License (31 C.F.R. 538.540) (which it refers to as the “2017 Sudan Rule”), authorizing all transactions prohibited by the SSR, including transactions in which the Government of Sudan has an interest.

As OFAC has clarified in a Fact Sheet on its website, pursuant to the 2017 Sudan Rule, “U.S. persons will generally be able to transact with individuals and entities in Sudan, and the property of the Government of Sudan subject to U.S. jurisdiction will be unblocked.” In particular, this means that U.S. persons can:

  • Import goods or services of Sudanese origin.
  • Export most goods, technology, and services to Sudan (a separate licensing requirement may apply to goods or technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as summarized in the subsection below).
  • Engage in transactions with persons blocked pursuant to the SSR (designated by the tag [SUDAN]).
  • Engage in transactions in which the Government of Sudan has an interest.
  • Engage in “all transactions necessary to unblock any property or interests in property that were blocked pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 538.201”.
  • Engage in transactions relating to the petroleum or petrochemical industries in Sudan.

OFAC has clarified in a set of Frequently Asked Questions posted on its website that the 2017 Sudan Rule supersedes existing general licenses as well as existing specific licenses or pending specific license applications. U.S. persons need only now comply with the terms of the 2017 Sudan Rule and not with any additional conditions contained in pre-existing and more restrictive general or specific licenses.

The 2017 Sudan Rule did not remove all restrictions on transactions with Sudan. In particular, the following restrictions remain:

  • Export of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, or Medical Devices: Due to a statutory restriction, exports or re-exports of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices eligible for export under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) “must be shipped within the 12 month period beginning on the date of the signing of the contract for export or reexport.”
  • Transactions with Other SDNs: While U.S. persons may now engage in transactions with persons designated pursuant to the SSR (identified with a [SUDAN] tag), the changes did not remove any other designations. U.S. persons, therefore, remain prohibited from engaging in virtually all transactions with persons remaining on the SDN list designated pursuant to other programs, including inter alia, Darfur ([DARFUR]), South Sudan ([SOUTH SUDAN]), terrorism ([SDGT]), or proliferation ([NPWMD]).
  • Other Agency Restrictions: OFAC’s 2017 Sudan Rule also did not affect any restrictions administered by other agencies, including but not limited to the export restrictions administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) (see below).

 

BIS Relaxations

Simultaneously, BIS issued a new review policy for certain limited Sudan-related exports. BIS will continue to require a license for the export or re-export to Sudan of nearly all goods, technology, or software subject to the EAR that are specified on the Commerce Control List, and will continue to maintain its general policy of denial for applications to export or reexport most controlled items when intended for any end-user or end-use in Sudan, with two exceptions. BIS has now adopted a general policy of approval for the following two types of exports or reexports:

  • Civil Aircraft: items controlled only for AT reasons and “that are intended to ensure the safety of civil aviation or the safe operation of fixed-wing commercial passenger aircraft.”
  • Railroads: items controlled only for AT reasons that “will be used to inspect, design, construct, operate, improve, maintain, repair, overhaul or refurbish railroads in Sudan.”
  • This general policy of approval, however, does not apply to transactions involving “sensitive” end-users, including Sudan’s “military, police, and/or intelligence services and persons that are owned by or are part of or are operated or controlled by those services.”

 

Additional Risk Factors

In addition to the lingering sanctions and export control restrictions summarized above, there are additional risk factors to consider before undertaking any transactions with Sudan. These include, inter alia:

  • State Sponsor of Terrorism: These relaxations did not affect Sudan’s current designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.
  • Skepticism from the New Administration and the Hill: The continuation of the relaxations will be heavily dependent on the views of the incoming Administration. President Trump’s administration will be responsible for making the notification required in the EO and it could revoke these changes as quickly as President Obama’s administration implemented them.

OFAC Radically Expands Its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction with B Whale Ruling

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, Clif.Burns@bryancave.com, 202-508-6067

(Source: Export Law Blog. Reprinted by permission.)

The recent decision by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) to issue a finding of violation, but no fine, against B Whale, a member of the Taiwanese TMT Shipping Group represents a new high (or low, depending on your point of view) for OFAC’s general belief that it has jurisdiction over anyone anywhere in the world.  At issue was the transfer of Iranian oil from an Iranian vessel in international waters to a Monrovian-registered Liberian-flag ship owned by a Taiwanese company without any branches or business operations in the United States.

OFAC claimed that this was an illegal importation of Iranian goods into the United States in violation of section 560.201 of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (“ITSR”).  Say what?  According to OFAC, the foreign flagged ship in international waters became a part of the United States once TMT filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States, thereby placing all its assets under the control of the bankruptcy court.  Because, you see, the ITSR defines the United States in section 560.307 of the ITSR as “the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.”  I imagine that TMT, and probably the government of Taiwan, will be somewhat surprised to learn that real property owned by TMT in Taipei is now a part of the United States.  By this logic, a bankrupt’s trucks in foreign countries would become “areas” under the jurisdiction of the United States.  Certainly these absurd results demonstrate that “area” in section 560.307 means geographic areas and not simply any physical space somewhere in the world.

I am unable to find any precedent from OFAC itself or any other court or agency for such an expansive definition of the United States   Interestingly, Congress, when defining the scope of federal criminal law, stops far short of OFAC’s definition.  The definition of “United States” in the federal criminal code is defined as “all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.” See 18 U.S.C. § 5.  To cover ships, which are not “places and waters, continental and insular” the federal criminal codes defines the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction” of the United States which covers ships on the high seas owned by at least one U.S. citizen or a foreign vessel with a scheduled departure or arrival in the United States “to the extent permitted by international law.”  See 18 U.S.C. § 7.  Ships owned by bankrupts aren’t either the United States or part of the special maritime jurisdiction as far as Congress was concerned.  It is hard to imagine that OFAC has the statutory authority to expand the scope of its jurisdiction in this fashion by calling every asset of a bankrupt anywhere on the face of the planet a part of “the United States.”

Not only does OFAC stretch the concept of “United States” beyond the breaking point, but also it does the same thing to the definition of “United States person.”  Whale B was found to have violated section 560.211 when it engaged in a transaction with a blocked Iranian vessel.  The violation occurred because OFAC decided that Whale B was a “United States person.” That term is defined in section 560.314 to cover a “person in the United States.”  And Whale B, a company organized under the laws of Taiwan and without any physical presence in the United States, was “in the United States” because it filed a bankruptcy case in the United States. It’s difficult to imagine where a principled limit could be drawn if filing a lawsuit in the United States means that a company is “in the United States.”  Is a company with a U.S copyright registration now “in the United States” and fully subject to U.S. sanctions? What if it has a dot com domain name issued by a U.S. registrar? Or it uses an email service that has servers in the United States?  Or it has a pending sales order it made with a U.S. company over the Internet?

And here’s one last comment on the B Whale shipwreck.  OFAC cites this as an aggravating factor: B Whale “took steps to conceal a ship-to-ship transfer of Iranian oil with an Iranian vessel on the SDN List … by … switching off the vessel’s automatic identification system during the time period corresponding with the ship-to-ship transfer.”  Apparently OFAC forgot that, because of the TMT bankruptcy, Whale B was subject to seizure and detention by foreign creditors in jurisdictions not interested in observing the automatic stay arising from the U.S. bankruptcy.  In such a situation, the more likely reason for turning off the AIS was the common practice of doing so to hide from foreign creditors, not from OFAC.

BIS Removes Certain Nuclear Nonproliferation Column 2 Controls

January 31st, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

This rule removes remove nuclear nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 license requirements from certain pressure tubes, pipes, fittings, pipe valves, pumps, numerically controlled machine tools, oscilloscopes, and transient recorders on the Commerce Control List (CCL).

As a result of the changes made by this rule, some of these items are no longer listed under an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) on the CCL. However, such items remain subject to the EAR under the designation EAR99. This rule also creates four new ECCNs to maintain anti-terrorism (AT) controls on certain affected commodities and related ‘‘software’’ and ‘‘technology.’’ All items subject to the EAR, regardless of whether they are listed on the CCL, may require a license for reasons described elsewhere in the EAR (e.g., license requirements based on end-user/end-use controls, embargoes, or other special controls).

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published this final rule on November 25, 2016, however, ‘software’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ for the ‘‘development,’’ ‘‘production,’’ or ‘‘use’’ of items previously controlled under ECCN 3A292 will continue to be classified and licensed by BIS under the designation EAR99 through January 31, 2017. As of February 1, 2017, such ‘‘software’’ will be classified and licensed by BIS under ECCN 3D991.

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-11-25/pdf/2016-28039.pdf

ITAR Corrected and Additions to Parts 120, 121, 122, 124, 126 and 127

January 31st, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

Effective December 5, 2016, the Department of State has amended the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to clarify recent revisions due to Export Control Reform (ECR), the scope of disclosure of information submitted to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the policies and procedures regarding statutory debarments, as well as correcting administration and typographical errors.

The following changes have been made following this final rule:

  • A definition of ‘‘classified’’ is moved from § 121.1(e) to § 120.46;
  • The structure of § 121.1(a)–(e) is realigned, with paragraphs (a) and (b) revised to clarify the existing requirements for United States Munitions List (USML) controls, and paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) removed;
  • Thirteen USML categories are amended to clarify that commodities, software, and technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and related to defense articles in a USML category may be exported or temporarily imported on the same license with defense articles from any category, provided they are to be used in or with that defense article;
  • In three places within the USML, the word ‘‘enumerated’’ is replaced with the word ‘‘described’’ to make the language consistent with changes directed in the Final Rule published at 79 FR 61226, Oct. 10, 2014;
  • Section 122.4(c)(4) is revised to permit the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to approve an alternative timeframe, not less than 60 days, to the current 60-day requirement for registrants to provide a signed amended agreement;
  • Section 124.2(c)(5)(v) is revised to correct errors to the USML category references for gas turbine engine hot sections, from VI(f) and VIII(b) to Category XIX;
  • Section 124.12 is amended in paragraph (a)(9) to update the name of the Defense Investigative Service to Defense Security Service;
  • Section 126.9 on Advisory Opinions and Related Authorizations is amended to correct paragraph (a);
  • Paragraph (b) of § 126.10 is amended to clarify the scope of control and disclosure of information, however, notwithstanding the changes to paragraph (b) it is the Department’s policy not to publicly release information relating to activities regulated by the ITAR except as required by law or when doing so is otherwise in the interest of the United States Government; and;
  • Section 127.7(b) is amended to clarify the policies and procedures regarding statutory debarments (addressing inadvertent omissions resulting from a prior amendment to that section), and § 127.11 is amended to make conforming revisions to paragraph (c) omitted from prior amendment to that section.

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-05/pdf/2016-28406.pdf

BIS Adds 23 Russian Entities to Entity List & Explains License Review Policy

January 31st, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

On December 27, 2016 the Bureau of Industry and Security published a final rule adding 23 Russian Entities to the Entity list and revises the licensing policy in three sections of part 742 of the EAR to clarify that BIS’s review of license applications for exports, reexports and transfers (in- country) to Russia.

BIS revised the CCL based controls sections of the EAR to clarify that it will review license applications to export or reexport to Russia items subject to the EAR and controlled for chemical and biological weapons proliferation (CB), nuclear nonproliferation (NP) or national security (NS) reasons under a presumption of denial, if the items proposed for export or reexport would make a direct and significant contribution to Russia’s military capabilities.

This final rules revises 742.2 and 742.3 of the EAR to clarify that license applications for items controlled for CB and NP reasons will be reviewed in accordance with the revised licensing policies in paragraph (b)(4) of both 742.2 and 742.3 and with the revised licensing policy in paragraph (b)(7) of 742.4 of the EAR. This rule revises 742.4(b)(7) of the EAR to clarify that license applications for items controlled for NS reasons will be reviewed under a presumption of denial if the items would make a direct and significant contribution to Russia’s military capabilities, including but not limited to, the major weapons systems described in Supplement No. 7 to part 742 of the EAR.

This final rule adds the following twenty-three entities to the Entity List:

Crimea Region of Ukraine:

  1. Crimean Ports, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • State Unitary Enterprise of the
  • Republic of Crimea ‘Crimean Ports’;
  • Sue RC ‘KMP’;
  • Sue RK ‘Crimean Ports’

28 Kirov Street, Kerch, Crimea Region of Ukraine 98312

 

  1.  Crimean Railway, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • Federal State Unitary Enterprise ‘Crimean Railway’;
  • Krymzhd;
  • The Railways of Crimea

34 Pavlenko Street, Simferopol, Crimea Region of Ukraine 95006.
Russia:

  1.  DJSC Factory Krasnoe Znamya, a.k.a., the following five aliases:
  • OJSC Factory Krasnoe Znamya;
  • OAO Zavod Krasnoe Znamya;
  • AO Krasnoye Znamya;
  • Krasnoye Znamya Plant OAO;
  • Krasnoye Znamya Plant JSC.

Shabulina Travel 2a, Ryazan, 390043, Russia

  1.  Ekran Scientific Research Institute, FSUE, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • FGUP Ekran.

Kirov Avenue 24, Samara 443022, Russia; and Krzhizhanovskogo Street 20/30, Moscow, 117218, Russia;

  1. ElTom Research and Production Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • NPP ElTom

Garshin Street 11, Tomilino, Lyuberetsky, Moscow, 140070, Russia

  1.  FSUE FNPC Nizhegorodsky Scientific Research Institute of Radiotechnics (NNIIRT),

Shaposhnikov Street 5, Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia

  1.  Institut Stroiproekt, AO, a.k.a., the following six aliases:
  • Aktsionernoe Obshcestvo Institut Stroiproekt;
  • AO Institut Stroiproekt;
  • AO Institute Stroyproekt (f.k.a., Institut Stroiproekt Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo);
  • Institute Stroyproect;
  • Stroyproekt;
  • Stroyproekt Engineering Group

D. 13 Korp. 2 LiteraA Prospekt Dunaiski, St. Petersburg 196158, Russia; and 13/2 Dunaisky Prospect, St. Petersburg 196158, Russia

  1. JSC GOZ Obukhov Plant, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • GOZ Obukhov Plant

Prospekt Obukhovskoi Oboroni 120, Saint Petersburg, 192012, Russia

  1. JSC Institute of Instrumentation— Novosibirsk Plant Comintern (NPO NIIP–NZIK), Planetnaya Street 32, Novosibirsk, 630015, Russia
  2.  JSC Scientific Research Institute of Aircraft Equipment (NIIAO), a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • SRIAE;
  • NIIAO;
  • Aviation Instrument Scientific Research Institute

Tupoleva 18, Zhukovsky, Moscow, 140182, Russia

  1.  Kaluga Scientific Research Radio Technology Institute (KRRTI), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • KNIRTI;
  • KRRTI

Lenin Street 2, Zhukov, Kaluga Oblast, 249192, Russia

  1.  Karst, OOO, a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • Construction Holding Company Old City—Karst;
  • Karst Ltd.;
  • LLC Karst;
  • Obshcestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Karst

D. 4 Litera A Pomeshchenie 69 ul. Kapitanskaya, St. Petersburg 199397, Russiaand 4 Kapitanskaya Street, Unit A, Office 69–N, St. Petersburg 199397, Russia

  1. LLC Ruschemtrade, St. Mashinostroitelnyj, 3, Rostov-on- Don 344090, Russia; and 86/1, Temryuk, Krasnodar 353500, Russia
  2.  OAO All-Russia Research Institute of Radio Equipment (JSC VNIIRA), a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • OJSC VNIIRA;
  • OAO All-Russia Research Institute of Radio Technology;
  • All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Radio Equipment

Shkipersky Protok 19, V.I. St. Petersburg, 199106, Russia

  1.  OJSC Ural Production Company Vector (UPP Vector), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • JSC ‘SCP’ Vector;
  • JSC PPM Vector

Gagarin Street 28, Ekaterinburg, 620078, Russia

  1.  Olid Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • OOO Solid

ul Mira 4, Novorossiysk, Krasnodarskiy kray 630024, Russia

  1.  Research and Production Association KVANT, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • NPO Kvant

Bolshaya Saint Petersburg 73, Velikii- Novgorod 173003, Russia

  1.  Research and Production Association M.V. Frunze, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • NNPO Frunze;
  • NZIF

Gagarin Prospect 174, Nizhny Novgorod, 606950, Russia

  1.  Ryazan State Instrument Enterprise (RSIE), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • RSIE;
  • GRPZ

Seminarskaya Street 32, Ryazan, 390000, Russia

  1.  Scientific and Production Association ‘‘Lianozovo Electromechanical Plant’’ (NPO LEMZ), a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • JSC LEMZ R&P Corporation;
  • OAO Design Bureau Lianozovsky Radars Moscow;
  • Lianozovsky Electromechanical factory;
  • OAO Design Bureau Lianozovsky

Radars Moscow. Dmitrovskoye Shosse 110, Moscow, 127411, Russia

  1.  Svyaz Design Bureau, OJSC, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • KB Svyaz. Prospect Sokolova 96

Rostov-on-Don 344010, Russia

  1.  Trans-Flot JSC, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • JSC Trans-Flot

ul Ventseka 1/97, Samara 443099, Russia

  1.  Transpetrochart Co. Ltd., Prospekt Engelsa 30, St. Petersburg 194156, Russia.

 

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-27/pdf/2016-31124.pdf