Category Archives: All

State and Commerce Departments Request Comments on USML Categories V, X, and XI and Related ECCNs

State Department Request for Comments

On February 2, the Department of State published a notice (83 FR 5970) seeking comments on the following topics as they relate to U.S. Munitions List (USML) Categories V (Explosives and Energetic Materials, Propellants, Incendiary Agents, and Their Constituents), X (Personal Protective Equipment), and XI (Military Electronics).  Specifically, the notice requests comments on the following issues:

  1. Emerging and new technologies that are appropriately controlled by one of the referenced categories, but which are not currently described in subject categories or not described with sufficient clarity.
  1. Defense articles that are described in subject categories, but which have entered into normal commercial use since the most recent revisions to the category at issue. For such comments, be sure to include documentation to support claims that defense articles have entered into normal commercial use.
  1. Defense articles for which commercial use is proposed, intended, or anticipated in the next 5 years.
  1. Drafting or other technical issues in the text of all of the referenced categories.
  1. Comments regarding USML Category XI paragraph (b) modification.
  1. Potential cost savings to private entities from shifting control of specific commercial items from USML to the Export Administration Regulations. To the extent possible, please quantify the cost of compliance with USML control of commercial items, to include the time saved, the reduction in paperwork, and any other cost savings for a particular change.

Comments may be submitted by internet at www.regulations.gov (Docket No. DOS–2017–0017) or by email to DDTCPublicComments@ state.gov through April 13, 2018.  Comments will be published and should not include proprietary or other sensitive information.

For the current USML categories, click here.

Commerce Department Request for Comments

In a related notice (83 FR 5968), the Department of Commerce requests comments on the following Commerce Control List (CCL) ECCNs (Export Control Classification Numbers): energetic materials (1B608, 1C608, 1D608 and 1E608); armored and protective equipment (1A613, 1B613, 1D613, 1E613); military electronics (3A611, 3B611, 3D611 and 3E611); and cryogenic and superconducting equipment (9A620, 9B620, 9D620 and 9E620).  Specifically, the notice requests comments on the efficacy of the previous revisions, how to improve the implementation of these 600 series items on the CCL, and the potential cost savings of shifting control of these specific items from the USML to the CCL.

Comments may be submitted by internet at www.regulations.gov (Docket No BIS–2018–0004) through April 13, 2018.  Comments will be published and should not include proprietary or other sensitive information.

For the current CCL categories click here.

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

South Sudan Policy of Denial; Will be Added to 126.1 Prohibited Destinations

The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has published a web notice announcing a policy change for South Sudan:

Change in Policy on Exports of Defense Articles and Defense Services to South Sudan (2.2.18)
Pursuant to section 38(a) of the Arms Export Control Act and the delegated authority of the Secretary of State thereunder, the Secretary has determined that it is the policy of the Department of State to deny, with limited exceptions, export licenses or other approvals for defense articles and defense services subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and destined for South Sudan. This policy is effective immediately. DDTC will publish a rule in the Federal Register to implement a conforming change to ITAR §126.1.

Sudan is already listed as a prohibited destination under ITAR § 126.1, which includes a note on South Sudan’s previous post-independence status:

Note to §126.1. On July 9, 2011, the Republic of South Sudan declared independence from Sudan and was recognized as a sovereign state by the United States. This policy does not apply to the Republic of South Sudan. Licenses or other approvals for exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in the Republic of the South Sudan will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The State Department has also published a more detailed press release on the policy change based on continuing violence in South Sudan.

UPDATE:  The amendment (83 FR 6457) adds South Sudan under 126.1(w) effective February 14, 2018:

(w) South Sudan. It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports of defense articles and defense services destined for South Sudan, except that a license or other approval may be issued, on a case-by-case basis, for:

(1) Defense articles and defense services for monitoring, verification, or peacekeeping support operations, including those authorized by the United Nations or operating with the consent of the relevant parties;

(2) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of, or use by, African Union Regional Task Force (AU-RTF) or United Nations entities operating in South Sudan, including but not limited to the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), the United Nations Police (UNPOL), or the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA);

(3) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of or use by non-governmental organizations in furtherance of conventional weapons destruction or humanitarian demining activities;

(4) Non-lethal defense articles intended solely for humanitarian or protective use and related technical training and assistance;

(5) Personal protective equipment including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to South Sudan by United Nations personnel, human rights monitors, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only; or

(6) Any defense articles and defense services provided in support of implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, or any successor agreement.

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

New Year State and Commerce Maximum Penalty Adjustments,
EAR Corrections, and Invitation for DTAG Membership

Editorial Updates to EAR

On December 27, 2017 (82 FR 61153, corrected by 83 FR 709), the Department of Commerce issued a series of revisions, clarifications, and technical corrections to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  These are editorial corrections that do not affect license requirements.  The rule also updates the Export Control Decision Tree (supplement No. 1 to part 732), last revised in 2004, primarily to correct references to the EAR.  The flow of the Export Control Decision Tree is unchanged.

Civil Penalties Adjusted for Inflation

On January 3, 2018 (83 FR 234, corrected by 83 FR 2738), the Department of State amended the ITAR (and other Title 22 regulations) to adjust the maximum civil penalties for inflation.  The § 127.10 civil penalties were amended as follows:

  • 127.10(a)(1)(i) increased from $1,111,908 to $1,134,602.
  • 127.10(a)(1)(ii) increased from $808,458 to $824,959 (or five times the amount of the prohibited incentive payment, whichever is greater).
  • 127.10(a)(1)(iii) increased from $962,295 to $981,935.

On January 8, 2018 (83 FR 706), the Department of Commerce published its adjustments for inflation, including increasing the maximum penalty for a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act from $289,238 to $295,141.

DTAG Membership Notice

Finally, the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG), the State Department’s advisory group of defense trade representatives, is seeking applications for membership with a postmark deadline of March 2, 2018.  For application and submission instructions, please see this notice.

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

State Department Discontinues DSP-119, Other Forms in Development

The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has published a web notice discontinuing acceptance of the DSP-119 (Application for Amendment to License for Export or Temporary Import of Classified or Unclassified Defense Articles and Related Classified Technical Data):

Web Notice: Discontinuance of ELLIE and form DSP-119: (11.14.17)
Effective December 1, 2017, DDTC will no longer accept form DSP-119 to amend the DSP-85. All pending DSP-119’s will be processed pursuant to 123.25 of the ITAR. Any DSP-119 form submitted to DDTC on or after December 1, 2017 will be returned without action. When amending the DSP-85, the applicant must submit a completely new DSP-85 along with a transmittal letter, signed by the Empowered Official explaining the amended change.

Previously an all-purpose amendment form, the DSP-119 is currently only accepted to amend the DSP-85 Application for Permanent/Temporary Export or Temporary Import of Classified Defense Articles and Related Classified Technical Data.  Unclassified licenses are unaffected and may continue to be amended with the appropriate form (DSP-6, DSP-62, or DSP-74).

DDTC continues to work on expanding online DECCS (Defense Export Control and Compliance System) forms which are submitted through an interactive, browser-based form.  DECCS currently supports the submission of Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) requests, which should be joined in the near future Advisory Opinion and Disclosure forms.  (Note also that DDTC currently recommends submitting a DSP-5 technical data export license in lieu of a General Correspondence Advisory Opinion when possible.)

DECCS forms for registration renewal and update as well as the single licensing form are also in development.

One-form electronic filing, proposed revisions of the definitions of defense services and manufacturing, and rules regarding release of technical data to foreign dual-nationals will be discussed at the next Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) meeting scheduled for February 1, 2018 (originally December 7, 2017, but rescheduled in a November 20th Federal Register Notice).  To attend the DTAG meeting, please note the instructions at the end of the notice.

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

State Department Requires Form DSP-83 for Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings

The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has published a web notice on Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC):

Web Notice: Category XIV(f)(7), including Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC): (11.01.17)
Consistent with 81 FR 49531 (July 28, 2016), Category XIV(f)(7) defense articles are designated as Significant Military Equipment. Accordingly, any application to export Category XIV(f)(7) defense articles requires a DSP-83 non-transfer and use certificate.

The notice is consistent with the organization of the United States Munitions List (USML) where all of Category XIV(f) is designated Significant Military Equipment (SME), but reverses long-standing policies, including those announced in September 2009 and February 2017 web notices.

Specifically, XIV(f)(7) controls “Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings that have been qualified to military specifications (MIL-PRF-32348, MIL-DTL-64159, MIL-C-46168, or MIL-DTL-53039).”

A related Export Control Reform (ECR) FAQ continues to state that application of Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC) does not necessarily subject an item to the USML:

Q: Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) in its most basic form is controlled under USML Category XIV(f)(5). When it is applied to an item subject to either the ITAR or EAR, will the item to which it is being applied now be controlled as Category XIV(f)(5)? To the USML, at a minimum?

A: No. CARC coating on an item, in and of itself, does not provide a military capability warranting USML control. Hence, items that are subject to the EAR and classified on the Commerce Control List, to include vehicles and equipment, do not become subject to the ITAR simply due to the application of CARC paint.

The 2009 and 2017 web notices stated that “CARC paint does not possess ‘substantial military utility or capability,’” but ongoing Export Control Reform (ECR) revisions have not yet removed the SME designation from XIV(f)(7).

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

Export Control Reform Moving Along: A Report from DTAG

The Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG), an advisory group of defense trade representatives, held a public meeting this month to discuss policies, regulations, and technical issues in defense trade.  Here are some of the highlights:

  • Export Control Reform has driven a 55% reduction in licensing volume since 2013 for the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).
  • DDTC is still working to move USML Categories I, II, & III (firearms, larger guns, and ammunition) to the CCL in the next year.  These categories currently represent around 30% of DDTC license applications, so the move would drive another significant reduction in their licensing volume.  One source of delay is Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” which directs agencies to repeal two existing regulations for each new significant regulation.  The new Commerce Department rules would be considered new regulations, requiring additional offsetting repeals of regulations.  The State Department operates under an exception for “regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States.”
  • The State Department will also consider revisions to the definition of defense services, U.S. persons abroad, and other definitions.
  • The State Department is considering whether UAVs should remain in Category I of the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) Annex, as opposed to less-sensitive Category II, is also under review and will be discussed at the October MTCR plenary.
  • The State Department is working on revisions to the UK & Australia Treaty implementation regulations.  Both treaties have helped to decrease licensing volume, but improvements can be made.
  • An interagency group involving the Departments of State and Defense is working on a rewrite of the ITAR.  There has not been a wholesale rewrite of the ITAR since 1984.  Overall, they are seeking to restructure for gaps and inconsistencies, add definitions, shorten the ITAR where possible, consider incorporation of guidance documents, and lead to a format that is conducive to a single control list (an end goal of Export Control Reform).
  • In IT modernization, DDTC is currently on track for a December roll-out of a single case management system, to be followed by a single license form.

The DTAG is expected to meet again next spring.

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

Montenegro Joins NATO: What it Means for Agreements and ITAR Exemptions

Montenegro officially joined NATO on June 5, 2017.  The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published a notice that “it is the policy of the Department of State that the term “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” (“NATO”) in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) includes Montenegro for the purpose of any subject transactions.”  An amendment to the NATO country list at ITAR section 120.31 is expected.

For existing agreements that include NATO member states, but not Montenegro, amendments would be required to add Montenegro as a transfer territory (see section 3.14 “Use of Collective Language” in the Guidelines for Preparing Agreements):

Using collective terms based on a collective organization (e.g., NATO, EU, AU, ESA) without defining territories for the transfer of defense articles or the provision of defense services is not authorized. Any proposed agreement submitted to DTCL must specifically list the countries of the collective organization since membership in such collective organizations is subject to change.

Notable ITAR exemptions available to Montenegro as a NATO member include 123.9(e) (reexports or retransfers of U.S.-origin components incorporated into a foreign defense article), 124.2 (maintenance training), and 126.18 (dual and third-country national employees of foreign parties).  NATO members are also subject to the higher Congressional Notification thresholds under 123.15 ($25 million for Major Defense Equipment and $100 million for defense articles and services generally).

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

The State Department Wants Your Input: ITAR, Guidance, and Process Reforms Under Consideration

Comments Requested on the ITAR and DDTC Guidance

On July 14, the Department of State published a notice (82 FR 32493) “seeking comments on Department regulations, guidance documents, and collections of information that you believe should be removed or modified to alleviate unnecessary burdens.”

This is a part of the Department’s implementation of the President’s January 30, 2017 Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” and an important opportunity to help make the ITAR and State Department guidance work better for everyone.  This includes any guidance on the DDTC website, https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/.

This is an open-ended chance to influence the future of the ITAR and DDTC guidance.  Consider any area that poses challenges to your company, including the questions addressed to DTAG below.

Comments may be submitted by internet at www.regulations.gov (Docket No. DOS–2017–0030) or by email to RegsReform@state.gov through August 14, 2017.

DTAG Recommendations Requested

Separately, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has asked the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) to make recommendations about the following topics at the upcoming plenary sessions:

  •  Whether industry would benefit from a single interagency form for DDTC, BIS, and OFAC.
    • Would a single form simplify company processes or is there concern that it would become unmanageably complex?
  • Whether batch filing should be expanded to registration, notifications, Commodity Jurisdiction requests, etc. and priorities for this expansion.
    • Does your company currently use batch filing? If so, how would expansion help?
  • Whether access/authentication methods other than IdenTrust certifications should be considered.
    •  Does your company have a positive experience with other certifications that should be considered?
  •  Key areas of concern regarding the 2015 proposed revision of the definition of defense services.
  •  An effective definition of “manufacturing” distinguished from assembly, integration, etc.
    •  This is in the context of possible revisions of Categories I-III removing most commercial firearms from the ITAR. Are there any changes to the definition that would be more workable?
  •  Identify alternative, workable methods to control releases of technical data to foreign dual-nationals.
    •  If releases to foreign dual-nationals are a challenge, what could be improved?
  •  Assessment of whether new agreements should have a standard expiration date of ten years from the date of approval. The current company-based expiration dates were designed to smooth out DDTC’s workload, but may have the opposite effect on individual companies.
    •  Do the company-based expiration dates unnecessarily complicate your business?
    •  For companies that do not always request the full ten years, would a standard expiration date complicate business?

DDTC’s DTAG letter may be found here.  DTAG will meet September 8, 2017 to review these recommendations.  Many of these questions would also fall under the regulatory reform comment request.

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

EXPORT COMPLIANCE IN 11 WORDS (Part 9 of 12)

EXPORT COMPLIANCE IN 11 WORDS
A Series on Export Compliance Essentials

(Part 9 of 12)

MONITOR!

Once you have an export compliance program in place, continuous monitoring is critically important to provide reasonable assurance of its effectiveness, enable you to make incremental adjustments to changing situations, and show you ways to improve the program’s efficiency. Annual compliance audits and assessments will be limited in their effectiveness and afford inadequate protection unless they are supported and complemented by the ongoing review processes that should be an integral part of compliance management.

Congratulations! It took a lot of hard work, and more time than you’d expected, but you’ve finally succeeded in getting a comprehensive export compliance program up and running at your company. You’re satisfied that it’s all there—the works, the whole enchilada, all the compliance essentials we’ve been looking at in this series:

  • Risk analysis and planning
  • A thorough manual with written policies and detailed procedures
  • Upper management commitment and involvement
  • Initial and repeated multi-level employee training
  • Clear delineation of roles, responsibilities, and accountability
  • Procedures for jurisdictional determination and product classification
  • Obtaining approval for licenses and agreements
  • Tracking the use of exemptions and exceptions
  • Labeling and marking controlled items and technical data
  • Real-time screening of customers, suppliers, service contractors, business partners, new hires, and other parties
  • Physical security
  • IT security
  • Mandatory recordkeeping and records-retention practices
  • Mandatory reporting to the government agencies
  • Periodic internal and external reviews, with follow-up of findings

All good. Sounds fantastic. We’ve got just a few more questions for you before you take off on that well-earned vacation you’ve been looking forward to. Here’s one:

What provisions have you made for monitoring the operation of your program? In other words, how do you plan to make sure your policies and procedures continue to be adequate and continue to function properly? And how do you plan to make sure you won’t be the last to know if they aren’t working as they should?

In compliance management, as in every other part of life, no matter how carefully you’ve planned and how well you’ve done your homework, there are sure to be some unforeseen challenges. Issues will surface that were not initially identified. A procedure that looked good on paper will be put into practice and turn out to be . . . not so good. Situations and personnel will change without warning, giving rise to a whole new set of problems.

Even the best-designed compliance program is bound to require fine-tuning and frequent adjustments in response to:

  • Changes in business needs
  • Changes in U.S. export laws and regulations
  • Changes in federal agency enforcement policies
  • Changes in technology
  • Changes in the national economy
  • Changes in the global marketplace
  • Changes in the global threat environment.

Yes, the annual risk assessments and compliance audits that you wisely included in your compliance plan are one important tool for coping with those challenges, but periodic audits cannot be the whole solution. All too often compliance audits are conducted too long after non-compliance events have already occurred to allow you to correct the issues and problems they uncover before a great deal of damage has been done.

If your company is committing an export violation today, or is about to do so, do you really want to be first apprised of the situation by the annual compliance audit report?  Don’t put off tomorrow what can be done today!

As a compliance officer, you need windows into your compliance program that allow you to view the current state of your company’s internal processes and see which areas need more attention right now. Periodic company-wide audits and assessments are most effective when they are informed and supplemented by day-to-day and week-to-week feedback from operational management, as well as frequent tests, checks, surveys, and “mini-audits” of specific processes and risk points.

Preventing the occurrence of export violations, or at least stopping them before they can multiply, is nearly always less costly and stressful than dealing with their aftermath. Successfully detecting intentional deviations from processes and procedures—such as when an employee purposely ignores or contravenes compliance safeguards for his or her own advantage or convenience—has the added benefit of reinforcing the perception that management prioritizes export compliance, is watching, and will take prompt action when problems occur.

That’s undoubtedly why the DDTC’s Compliance Program Guidelines counsel “internal monitoring” that involves “measurement of effectiveness of day-to-day operations” with “emphasis on validation of full export compliance, including adherence to license and other approval conditions.”

It’s also why the BIS’s Office of Exporter Services included “internal and external compliance monitoring,” along with periodic audits, as one of the Nine Key Elements of an Effective Compliance Program. In the agency’s 145-page handbook for U.S. exporters, Compliance Guidelines: How to Develop an Effective Export Management and Compliance Program and Manual, the BIS recommends “a transaction-level and process-level review of compliance efforts with a special emphasis placed on areas of high risk,” noting that such monitoring can “successfully focus attention at the business-unit level on risk areas at an early stage, affording the opportunity to correct deficiencies before they result in major problems.”

The DDTC and BIS guidance documents agree that internal and external monitoring are both important. Every company or organization, in addition to actively monitoring itself, needs outside assurance from an independent third party that its compliance efforts are on the right track.

The following compliance “best practices” also fall under the general rubric of export compliance monitoring:

  • Self-monitoring and reporting by operations staff in all export-related departments and divisions of the company on the effectiveness of specific compliance processes and procedures is requested and implemented.
  • Timely crosstalk is encouraged among employees in export-related departments, divisions, and branches within the company to ensure that practical compliance experiences and lessons learned are communicated throughout the entire organization, with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of export controls and promoting consistency of procedures.
  • Clear and specific internal procedures have been established and communicated to all employees, including contract employees, for the reporting of potential export compliance problems to management, including the option of reporting export violations anonymously through a mailbox, website, or helpline.
  • Employees understand that management considers the reporting of suspected export violations to be the duty of each employee and know that they will be protected from retribution or retaliation of any kind if they raise questions or concerns about compliance in good faith.
  • On-site end-use monitoring of personnel performing defense services is performed frequently by qualified export compliance staff to ensure that their activities remain within the scope of the relevant export authorization.
  • Previously identified export compliance problems or high-risk areas are revisited to ensure that the prescribed corrective actions were implemented and that they have been effective.

Unlike banks and financial institutions, who may choose to concentrate their compliance monitoring on those transactions with the highest impact on revenue, exporters of defense articles and services, dual-use commodities, technical data, and controlled technology, when monitoring ITAR, EAR, and OFAC compliance, may sometimes need to focus on business areas that have a relatively small revenue impact but carry a large compliance risk. Manufacturing or distribution operations in a developing country, for example, or exports to new trading partners in a formerly embargoed nation whose U.S. trade sanctions were only recently lifted, might be relatively small now, when measured by current sales or profits, but multiple compliance challenges and the potential for serious penalties may call for close and continuous monitoring.

Monitoring day-to-day compliance may seem unexciting, like performing routine maintenance on your car. It undoubtedly requires a significant investment of time, effort, and money, and the benefits may not be immediately evident. But most car owners understand that failure to do so is a sure recipe for disaster.  In other words, don’t let procrastination get in the way of success and continuously monitor your compliance program!

 

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)

New Year ITAR Updates

Category XV Revised

Effective January 15, 2017, the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has revised United States Munitions List (USML) Category XV, Spacecraft and Related Articles, in Federal Register Notice 82 FR 2889.  Changes include new aperture specifications for remote sensing satellites under XV(a)(7) and XV(e)(2), the exclusion of the James Webb Space Telescope and “spacecraft that dock exclusively via the NASA Docking System (NDS),” and other spacecraft attributes and revisions.

Category XII Request for Comments

The Department of State also requested comments on recent revisions to USML Category XII, Fire Control, Range Finder, Optical and Guidance and Control Equipment, in Federal Register Notice 82 FR 4226.  Specifically, the Department requests comments about “(1) alternatives to controls on certain items when ‘specially designed for a military end user,’ (2) the scope of the control in paragraph (b)(1), and (3) certain technical parameters that the Department is evaluating to replace ‘specially designed’ controls.”

Comments will be accepted by email or internet through March 14, 2017.

Amendments to AES References

Also, effective December 31, 2016 but published on January 3, 2017 in 82 FR 15, multiple sections of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) were amended to refer directly to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) International Trade Data System (ITDS).  References to the Automated Export System (AES) have been removed and now refer to the CBP’s electronic systems (which now include the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)).

(None of the information is intended to be authoritative official or professional legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon this blog or other unofficial sources.)