Archive for the ‘CCL’ Category


Jul

15

New Rule Would Make It Harder to Export Spare Parts without Licenses


Posted by at 5:21 pm on July 15, 2011
Category: CCLExport ReformUSML

Spare PartsAs noted in yesterday’s post dealing with the proposed rule by the Bureau and Industry and Security (“BIS”) on the transfer of United States Munitions List (“USML”) items to the Commerce Control List (“CCL”), parts and components of USML items may be transferred to the CCL while the item itself remains on the USML. In those cases, the parts, which will be covered under the new series 600 ECCNs, can be exported under BIS’s license exception RPL. However, that license exception requires that the exported spare parts be one-for-one replacements for parts of an item that had been previously exported pursuant to a license issued by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

The problem here is that those parts now may only be exported without license using the overly restrictive conditions of RPL which require that the parts be a one-to-one replacement and cannot be shipped to be held in inventory for future repairs. This has been a much criticized aspect of BIS regulations which makes American goods less competitive by holding repairs hostage to the shipping delays that the one-to-one replacement rule inherently causes.

If the parts remained on the USML, they would be entitled to the license exemption in ITAR section 123.16(b)(2), which does not contain the burdensome one-to-one replacement requirement. That exemption permits the unlicensed export of repair parts if they are valued at less than $500, provided there are no more than 24 shipments per year to each approved end user. In those many instances where spare parts needed for repairs are relatively inexpensive, this rule provides much more flexibility to exporters; but it will now be lost for those parts that are transferred to the CCL.

Perhaps, the new license exception STA will be used to ameliorate this hardship somewhat. However, for each of the transferred USML parts, STA eligibility will depend on a one-time eligibility determination that may not have been made yet for the particular part at issue. And it won’t apply to exports of parts to countries not eligible for license exception STA. Those wishing to comment on the proposed rule might consider requesting that the provisions of 123.16(b)(2) be written into the revised RPL for the new series 600 ECCNs.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Feb

10

Oh Where, Oh Where, Has My CCL Gone?


Posted by at 9:23 pm on February 10, 2011
Category: BISCCL

WaahLet’s say that you were an agency like the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) and you had a huge and complex list of sensitive items that needed a license for export. Now, unless your administrative goal was to collect a bunch of fines for illegal exports, you would make that list easily and readily available, wouldn’t you? You would think.

But sometime in the past several days our friends at BIS removed the old Commerce Control List (“CCL”) that was linked on their site, and replaced it with a new one that is, kindly put, an unusable mess. Imagine the CCL as one big file with all the ECCN’s smushed together with no index, no table of contents, no links, no page numbers, no bookmarks, nothing but a gigantic run-on webpage. Well, you don’t have to imagine. Click here and behold the new format of the CCL on the BIS website

One mortified exporter, who was kind enough to bring this mess to my attention called BIS, imagining that this was just some temporary mistake that would soon be fixed. The exporter spoke with a BIS Export Counselor who explained that the new format was here to stay. He also conceded that the new format was less easy to use for people trying to classify items. Oh, great.

However, all is not lost. You can find the CCL in its original online format here at Export Law Blog by clicking on the link to the EAR in the right column or clicking here. We can’t guarantee how long the GPO will keep this version of the EAR up-to-date, but for the moment you can still consult the CCL in the format you’ve come to know and love. You can also, for a paltry $191, buy the 2010 dead tree edition from GPO here. Having a hard copy of the entire EAR in your office is sure to impress your friends who probably have no idea just exactly how large it is.

Permalink Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

8

Commerce Proposes Broad New License Exception


Posted by at 11:48 pm on December 8, 2010
Category: CCLExport Reform

Export ReformIn tomorrow’s Federal Register, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security will propose, as part of the export reform initiative, a new license exception called the Strategic Trade Authorization (STA). The new license exception will eliminate current license requirements for exports of a large number of items on the Commerce Control List to 162 destinations. The exact list of items eligible for this exception is not yet completely finalized because BIS has not yet designated “Tier 1” items, i.e., the most sensitive items on the CCL, all of which will not be eligible for this new exception.

Countries not eligible for exports under License Exception STA include, not surprisingly, all the countries subject to complete or partial arms embargos, as listed here and including, for example, China, Venezuela, Haiti, Vietnam, Lebanon and Belarus. Ineligible countries also include countries not subject to any arms embargo, including the U.A.E., Malaysia, Qatar, Angola and Pakistan.

Exporters using License Exception STA will be required to comply with other conditions as a prerequisite to the availability of the exception, most notably a requirement that the exporter report exports using the exception to BIS under the provisions of § 743.1 of the Export Administration Regulations. Additionally, a special Destination Control Statement will be required for exports under License Exception STA.

Permalink Comments Off on Commerce Proposes Broad New License Exception

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

8

What’s In The U.S.-India Export Agreement?


Posted by at 9:01 pm on November 8, 2010
Category: BISCCLEntity List

White House PhotoA joint statement released today by President Obama and Prime Minister Singh of India announced a new planned cooperation between the United States and India. Long on aspiration and short on details, the statement says that the two countries have agreed to “transform bilateral export control regulations and policies to realize the full potential of the strategic partnership between the two countries.”

The part of the proposal that has attracted the most attention, particularly in the Indian press, is the agreement to remove some or all of the Indian companies and agencies currently on the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). Currently, the Entity List, which adds special license requirements for most exports to the designated entities, covers Bharat Dynamics Limited, three subordinate agencies in the Defense Research and Development Organization, four subordinate agencies of the Indian Space Research Organization, and two components of the Department of Atomic Energy as well as all nuclear reactors not under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

The language in the joint statement relating to these entities is somewhat ambiguous:

[T]he two leaders decided to take mutual steps to expand U.S. – India cooperation in civil space, defense, and other high-technology sectors. Commensurate with India’s nonproliferation record and commitment to abide by multilateral export control standards, these steps include the United States removing Indian entities from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s “Entity List” and realignment of India in U.S. export control regulations.

Notice the statement does not say that “all” Indian entities will be removed from the Entity List. Because the focus of the statement is on cooperation in “space, defense, and other high-technology sectors,” there is a good possibility that every Indian entity except the two listed Department of Atomic Energy components and the unsafeguarded nuclear reactors will be removed.

It is also not clear what is meant by the “realignment of India in U.S. export control regulations.” Perhaps India might be removed from Country Group D and promoted to a more-favored group. Maybe the Country Chart will be amended to change the reasons for control applicable to India. Or maybe licensing officers at BIS will be directed to think five nice thoughts about India each day.

Finally, the joint statement indicates that the U.S. will support India’s membership in four multilateral export control regimes — Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, and Wassenaar Arrangement. Of course, India will first have to adopt the controls required for those regimes, something it has so far not done.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

7

Washington Times Lashes Out Against Export Reform


Posted by at 8:41 pm on September 7, 2010
Category: CCLExport ReformUSML

Sun Myung MoonAs the troubled Washington Times enters into what may be its final days, unless it accepts the cold embrace and re-emergence of its founder, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the paper has turned its back on some of it former friends and given a forum to, of all people, Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms. Even though much of export reform is in areas that have nothing to do with Nuclear Arms, Mr. Milhollin — quelle surprise — is no fan of any export reform at all

Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, called the new policy a “defense industry bailout.”

“The financial industry and the auto industry had their bailouts, now it is the defense industry’s turn,” he said.

Mr. Milhollin also said the United States steadily relaxed arms-export controls since the end of the Cold War. “We have already reduced controls to the bone,” he said.

I can only imagine that Mr. Milhollin hasn’t glanced at the Commerce Control List or the United States Munitions List recently or even at all if he can say we have already reduced controls to the bone with a completely straight face.

The number of items on the CCL that have no business being there is, as most readers of this blog will know, significant. My favorite example, of course, is “horses by sea” controlled by ECCN 0A980. But no survey of the oddities of the CCL would be complete without mentioning controls on items easily obtainable throughout the world such as triethanolamine (ECCN C350.c.9) used in cosmetics such as shaving cream. Other unique oddities of the list include thumbcuffs, whips, cattle prods, fingerprint inks, pumps and valves, muzzle-loading pistols and rifles, and optical sights for BB guns.

And the USML has its own share of unnecessary controls, starting with, of course, its legendary controls on military railway trains which have pretty much gone the way of muzzle-loading pistols, catapults, jousting lances, and military calvary brigades as items of warfare. Others include weapons silencers, flash suppressors, rifle parts, body armor, powder bags, and cartridge casings, all of which are readily available outside the United States.

None of this sounds to me like these two lists have been “cut to the bone.”

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)