ABOVE: Kevin Wolf

---

Do you want to talk to an important official at the Bureau of Industry and Security about export reform? Well, here’s your chance. BIS is resuming its weekly teleconferences with Kevin Wolf, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, on December 12, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. EST. The dial-in number for the conference calls is: 1-888-455-8218 and the participant code: 6514196. Callers should dial in 10 minutes early.

These calls will occur weekly on Wednesdays (except for December 26 when I hope the Assistant Secretary and this blog’s readers will all be spending a well-deserved Christmas vacation at home with family and friends). The purpose of these calls is to provide information on export control reform initiatives and to assist parties in preparing comments in pending rulemaking proceedings related to export reform.

There’s only one small catch: Questions for Kevin should be sent in advance of the call to [email protected] with a subject line of “teleconference questions.” So, if you were planning to ask Mr. Wolf about his thoughts about what will happen in the next season of “Mad Men” or some other topic of burning, but non-export, interest, don’t bother to push the send button. I have it on good authority that public comment on export control reform is both wanted and valued by BIS, so don’t pass up this opportunity.

Illinois-based Littlefuse, Inc., which, not surprisingly, makes fuses, filed a voluntary disclosure with the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) relating to 37 unlicensed exports, worth $90,017.96, to the Philippines (presumably its own manufacturing facility there.) In return for its efforts, BIS wrangled an agreement from the company to pay a $180,000 fine. Yes, I know that BIS could have fined Littlefuse 100 Billion Dollars (more accurately, 9.25 million dollars, at $250,000 per export), but twice the value of the exports seems exorbitant where there is no evidence that Littlefuse knew of and intentionally ignored the license requirement.

Interestingly, the charging documents accuse Littlefuse of exporting a “liquid crystal polymer” classified as ECCN 1C008.b to the Philippines. Unfortunately, the ECCN in question only controls “liquid crystal copolymers.” “What’s a little ‘co’ among friends?” you may ask. Polymer, copolymer, schmopolymer. Actually, there is a difference. A copolymer is “a polymer derived from two (or more) monomeric species, as opposed to a homopolymer where only one monomer is used.” So, whereas all copolymers are polymers, not all polymers are copolymers. In other words, exporting a “liquid crystal polymer” is not necessarily a violation of the rules.

BIS expects exporters to have sufficient sophistication to understand and apply the technical terminology of the Commerce Control List with substantial penalties imposed for failure to do so. That is not such a reasonable expectation when the agency itself appears not to understand the relevant terminology used by its own control list.

I suppose it was inevitable. The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) today announced a proposed rule that would require that a final voluntary disclosure be filed within 180 days after the filing of the initial notification. Currently there is no time limit imposed during which the final disclosure must be filed after the initial notification.

The proposed rule would allow an extension to be granted upon a showing that “more than 180 days is reasonably needed to complete the narrative account.” Examples given of circumstances that might justify an extension include mass layoffs (gee, thanks!), bankruptcy (dead companies don’t talk) and delays in obtaining BIS classification decisions necessary to the final disclosure (imagine that!).

To be fair, it does seem that 180 days should in most cases be enough time to conduct the necessary internal investigation and file the final voluntary disclosure. Currently, the Department of State imposes a much shorter deadline — 60 days — between the filing of the initial notification and the final voluntary disclosure. Even so, I can’t resist pointing out that this is another example of an agency that imposes deadlines on the people it regulates but imposes no such deadlines upon itself. After the final voluntary disclosure is filed, BIS can take as much time as it wants to provide a decision.

Comments on the proposed rule are requested by January 7, 2013.

According to settlement documents released by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), New Jersey based Phibrochem agreed to pay $31,000 to settle charges that it exported $14,000 worth of sodium fluoride to Mexico without a license. Sodium fluoride, which is classified as ECCN 1C350, can be used to produce methylphosphonyl difluoride which, in turn, is used to produce the nerve gas sarin.

The first reaction you might have to this case is to wonder whether Phibrochem was even aware of the license requirement. After all, sodium fluoride is everywhere. It’s in tap water for Pete’s sake. The charging documents, however, make clear that this wasn’t an innocent mistake by noting that Phibrochem had previously obtained a license to ship sodium fluoride to the same end user in Mexico.

And your next thought may well be, forget TSA requirements, do I need a license to take a tube of Crest on my next trip to Europe? Do I have to buy some strange brand of toothpaste called Odol-med3 in Berlin to avoid being arrested when I board my flight at Dulles? Thanks to note 2.b, your Crest is safe:

A license is not required under this ECCN for a mixture, when the controlled chemical in the mixture is a normal ingredient in consumer goods packaged for retail sale for personal use.

Whew.